Jones v Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2016] WADC 111

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JONES -v- PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD [No 2] [2016] WADC 111

CORAM: STEWART DCJ

HEARD: 13 JUNE 2016

DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 2920 of 2015

BETWEEN: JOHN RICHARD JONES
First appellant
BOSCO KINETICS PTY LTD
Second appellant
AND
PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN
Citation  :JONES -v- PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS (WA) PTY LTD [2016] WADC 26
File No  :CIV 2920 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal from registrar - Application for summary judgment - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Application for summary judgment dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First appellant                :     Mr J MacLaurin
Second appellant           :     Mr J MacLaurin
Respondent:     Mr P Hardie

Solicitors:

First appellant                :     Lawton Gillon
Second appellant           :     Lawton Gillon
Respondent:     Hardies Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR5QB 449
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Fancourt v Mercantile Credit Limited (1983) 154 CLR 87
Harry Smith Car Sales Pty Ltd v Claycom Vegetable Supply Co Pty Ltd (1979) 29 ACTR 21
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Morgan v Pallister [2004] WASC 188
Stevens v Hoberg [1952] St R Qd 10

STEWART DCJ:

Introduction

The respondent company, Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd (Pyramid), operates a property development and construction business.
The first appellant, John Richard Jones (Mr Jones), was from 5 September 2005 to 27 June 2014 a director and shareholder of Pyramid. During the time of Mr Jones' directorship of Pyramid the other directors were Mr Jerry Masaryk (Mr Masaryk) and from on or about 10 October 2012 Mr Anthony Paul Chillino (Mr Chillino).
Mr Jones is a director, shareholder and secretary of the second appellant, Bosco Kinetics Pty Ltd (Bosco).
On or about 6 June 2014 Mr Jones alleges that he and Pyramid entered into a written agreement to settle a dispute about entitlement to monies in a bank term deposit. It is alleged that Pyramid would pay Mr Jones the sum of $450,000 by instalments to settle the payment dispute. Some payments were made to Bosco under the agreement.
Mr Jones and Bosco sued for the balance of the monies under the agreement. It is alleged there has been a breach of the settlement agreement.
Mr Jones and Bosco applied for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (RSC).
This is an appeal against the judgment of Deputy Registrar Harman dismissing Mr Jones' and Bosco's application for summary judgment and awarding Pyramid the costs of the application in any event: Jones v Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 26.
By this appeal Mr Jones and Bosco seek the following orders:
1.The application for summary judgment be allowed.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WADC 111
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [No 2] involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Jones, and the defendant, Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd, regarding a claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant for the outstanding amount of $244,000, which was the subject of a prior judgment in the District Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to the summary judgment as sought and if the application turned solely on its own facts. The defendant contested the application on the basis that there were triable issues that needed to be determined at a trial. The court needed to assess the evidence and determine if the plaintiff's case was so clear-cut that it warranted a summary judgment without the need for a full trial.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the burden of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities. It was established that the defendant had been served with the proceedings, had failed to enter an appearance or file any defence, and the claim was supported by a prior judgment. The court determined that there were no triable issues that needed to be resolved at a trial, and the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was not contingent on any external facts. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment in the sum of $244,000, with interest accruing from the date of the prior judgment.

Orders