L and H Group v White - [2017] VSC 188

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2016 01841

L & H GROUP (a Limited Partnership)	Plaintiff
v
CLYDE PETER WHITE and DAVID CHARLES QUIN in their capacity as Trustees of the Bankrupt Estate of Mr John Stanley Young	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	DALY AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 December 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	L & H Group v White and anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 188

---

PARTNERSHIP – Appeal from decision of a Magistrate pursuant to s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) – Company director provided a guarantee of debts owing by the company to a limited partnership – Composition of partnership in contractual documentation different from the partnership bringing the proceeding – Whether limited partnership properly sued the guarantor in the firm name – Partnership Act 1958 (Vic) Part 3 – Whether certificates under s 58 of Partnership Act conclusive evidence of the limited partnership and its members.

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Whether guarantor made admissions as to the plaintiff’s status as a party to an agreement – Whether learned Magistrate erred in finding that the plaintiff had no standing to sue on that agreement – Whether learned Magistrate erred in failing to stay proceeding to enable plaintiff to join parties – Spotless Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 271 referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D G Robertson QC with Mr M T Lapirow	Davies Moloney
No appearance for the Defendants
Amicus Curiae	J Kenny	Kalus Kenny Intelex

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Factual Background........................................................................................................................... 1

Bankruptcy Orders............................................................................................................................. 2

The Decision Below........................................................................................................................... 2

Orders of Lansdowne AsJ................................................................................................................. 6

Notice of Appeal................................................................................................................................. 6

The Hearing Below............................................................................................................................ 8

Submissions of L & H Group upon appeal................................................................................ 10

Letter from Kalus Kenny Intelex................................................................................................... 13

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 16

HER HONOUR:

The appellant in this proceeding (‘L & H Group’) has appealed to this Court under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) (‘Magistrates’ Court Act’) a decision made by the Magistrates’ Court on 26 February 2016. For the reasons which follow, the decision of the learned Magistrate should be quashed and the orders sought by L & H Group substituted for those made below.

Factual Background

Railway Works Products and Services Pty Ltd (‘Railway Works’) is the trustee for Railway Unit Trust (together, ‘the company’). Mr John Young was the director of the company.

L & H Group entered into an agreement with the company on or about 8 April 2014 (‘agreement’), which required L & H Group to provide electrical goods to the company. Pursuant to the agreement, L & H Group offered to provide credit to the company. The agreement was premised upon Mr Young giving a guarantee over the debts of the company pursuant to the agreement (‘guarantee’), which he did. The guarantee included a term whereby Mr Young provided L & H…

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 L and H Group v White

Details

AGLC: L and H Group v White [2017] VSC 188
Case: [2017] VSC 188
Decision Date: 26 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of L and H Group v White involved a dispute between the respondent, a limited partnership, and the appellant, the guarantor of certain debts owed by the company. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, with the appeal originating from a decision made by a Magistrate pursuant to section 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic). The primary issue before the court was whether the limited partnership was correctly sued under its firm name, considering the discrepancies in the partnership’s composition as outlined in the contractual documentation.

The court needed to determine if the limited partnership was properly represented and if the certificates under section 58 of the Partnership Act 1958 (Vic) provided conclusive evidence of the partnership and its members. Additionally, the court examined whether the guarantor had made admissions regarding the plaintiff’s status as a party to the agreement and whether the Magistrate erred in concluding that the plaintiff had no standing to sue on the agreement. The court also considered if the Magistrate erred in not staying the proceeding to allow the plaintiff to join the necessary parties, drawing on the principles established in Spotless Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 271.

The County Court found that the limited partnership was correctly sued under its firm name, and the certificates under section 58 of the Partnership Act were sufficient evidence of the partnership’s existence and its members. The court also concluded that the guarantor had made admissions as to the plaintiff’s status, and there was no error in the Magistrate’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to sue on the agreement. Furthermore, the court ruled that there was no error in the Magistrate’s decision not to stay the proceeding. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the County Court were affirmed.

Orders