Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden - [2023] NSWDC 273

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden [2023] NSWDC 273
Hearing dates: 8 and 9 February 2023
Date of orders: 21 July 2023
Decision date: 21 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Andronos SC DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $79,933.41 (inclusive of interest).
(2)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
(3)   Grant liberty to the parties to apply to vary order (2) herein, by email to my associate identifying the order they seek, within 7 days.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — Parties — Privity – Implication of terms
RESTITUTION — Nature of restitutionary liability — Common counts — Quantum meruit – Availability where valid contract

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), s 56
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), Div 7A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.12

Cases Cited:
Air Tahiti Nui Pty Ltd v McKenzie (2009) 77 NSWLR 299
Barroora Pty Ltd v Provincial Insurance Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 170
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Davies v Apted [2013] SASCFC 92
Dennis Pethybridge v Stedikas Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 154
Lederberger v Mediterranean Olives Financial Pty Ltd (2012) 38 VR 509; [2012] VSCA 262
Tagget v McLean Austquip Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1310
Townsend v Roussety & Co (WA) Pty Limited [2007] WASCA 40

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Inline Partners Pty Ltd (plaintiff/cross-defendant)
Kazan Hadden (defendant/cross-claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T W Marskell (plaintiff/cross-defendant)
Mr D K Ratnam (defendant/cross-claimant)
Solicitors:
Clyde & Co (plaintiff/cross-defendant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (defendant/cross-claimant)

File Number(s): 2021/00304994
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff (“Inline”) is an accounting firm that provides accounting and bookkeeping services. The defendant (“Mr Hadden”) is the director, secretary and shareholder of a number of companies. On 31 March 2020 and 2 September 2020 Inline issued six invoices to Mr Hadden in respect of work performed, it alleges, for him and his companies. Mr Hadden denies he is liable. The aggregate amount of the six disputed invoices is $71,544.00.
Inline says Mr Hadden is liable to pay those invoices as a matter of contract or, alternatively, for reasonable remuneration on the basis of a quantum meruit. Mr Hadden denies liability because he says he was not party to any contract with Inline, that he did not receive any, or the sole, benefit from the work performed by it, and Inline has failed to establish that its claim on the quantum meruit is reasonable.
The proceedings were commenced in the Penrith Local Court, but were transferred to this Court on Mr Hadden’s application. He had brought a cross-claim against the plaintiff alleging, inter alia, negligence in the performance of accountancy services which exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court. The cross-claim has since been abandoned and, on the first…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden

Details

AGLC: Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden [2023] NSWDC 273
Case: [2023] NSWDC 273
Decision Date: 21 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Inline Partners Pty Ltd and Mr Hadden was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought a judgment for the recovery of amounts owed under a contract, along with interest and costs. The defendant, who had entered into a contract with a third party, argued that the plaintiff could not enforce the contract due to the doctrine of privity of contract and that there was no basis for a claim in restitution.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could enforce the contract directly against the defendant and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a restitutionary claim if the contract was unenforceable. The court considered whether the contract could be impliedly novated or assigned, allowing the plaintiff to directly enforce it against the defendant, and whether the plaintiff could claim restitution for the value of services provided under the contract.

The court held that the contract could not be novated or assigned to the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff could not directly enforce the contract against the defendant. However, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to restitution for the value of services provided under the contract. The court held that the plaintiff could claim quantum meruit, which is a restitutionary remedy available when a valid contract exists but cannot be enforced directly. The court awarded the plaintiff judgment for the amount of $79,933.41, which included interest, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The court also granted liberty to the parties to apply to vary the costs order within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $79,933.41 (inclusive of interest).

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

(3) Grant liberty to the parties to apply to vary order (2) herein, by email to my associate identifying the order they seek, within 7 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden [2023] NSWDC 273
Hearing dates:	8 and 9 February 2023
Date of orders:	21 July 2023
Decision date:	21 July 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Andronos SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $79,933.41 (inclusive of interest). (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. (3) Grant liberty to the parties to apply to vary order (2) herein, by email to my associate identifying the order they seek, within 7 days.
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS — Parties — Privity – Implication of terms RESTITUTION — Nature of restitutionary liability — Common counts — Quantum meruit – Availability where valid contract
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), s 56 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), Div 7A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.12
Cases Cited:	Air Tahiti Nui Pty Ltd v McKenzie (2009) 77 NSWLR 299 Barroora Pty Ltd v Provincial Insurance Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 170 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Davies v Apted [2013] SASCFC 92 Dennis Pethybridge v Stedikas Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 154 Lederberger v Mediterranean Olives Financial Pty Ltd (2012) 38 VR 509; [2012] VSCA 262 Tagget v McLean Austquip Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1310 Townsend v Roussety & Co (WA) Pty Limited [2007] WASCA 40
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Inline Partners Pty Ltd (plaintiff/cross-defendant) Kazan Hadden (defendant/cross-claimant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T W Marskell (plaintiff/cross-defendant) Mr D K Ratnam (defendant/cross-claimant) Solicitors: Clyde & Co (plaintiff/cross-defendant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (defendant/cross-claimant)
File Number(s):	2021/00304994
Publication restriction:	Nil