Legal Research
Cases
La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd

La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd

Case [2020] WASCA 83 28 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   LA MELA -v- FRANKLEXIS PTY LTD [2020] WASCA 83
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
BEECH JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   6 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   28 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACV 26 of 2019
BETWEEN:   VINCENZO LA MELA
Appellant
AND
FRANKLEXIS PTY LTD
First Respondent
FRANK FOGLIANI
Second Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACV 28 of 2019
BETWEEN: VINCENZO LA MELA
Appellant
AND
FRANKLEXIS PTY LTD
First Respondent
FRANK FOGLIANI
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   PETRUSA DCJ
File Number            :   APP 101 of 2017

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to adjourn appeal hearing and amend grounds of appeal - Whether adjournment in the interests of justice - Turns on own facts

Contracts - Contract for provision of repair services for motor vehicle - Whether dealings ought to be analysed in terms of a unilateral contract - Whether appellant rejected offer by instructing that part not be installed - Whether communication revealed mutual intent to enter into a bilateral contract - Turns on own facts

Costs determination - Whether discretionary error by magistrate or primary judge permitting appellate review - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 42
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B

Result:

Application to adjourn appeal hearing refused
Application to add new grounds of appeal refused
Time for appellant to lodge notice of appeal extended
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACV 26 of 2019

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	P A Martino
Second Respondent	:	P A Martino

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	P A Martino
Second Respondent	:	P A Martino

CACV 28 of 2019

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	P A Martino
Second Respondent	:	P A Martino

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	P A Martino
Second Respondent	:	P A Martino

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

Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S)
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [1954] HCA 20; (1954) 92 CLR 424
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162
Bolwell Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Foley [1984] VR 97
Bowen v Alsanto Nominees Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 39 (S)
Brambles Holdings v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; (2002) 209 CLR 95
Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hughes v St Barbara Ltd [2011] WASCA 234
JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd v CH2M Hill Companies Ltd [2020] WASCA 38
La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd [2019] WADC 7
Lilley v Barnsley (1844) 1 Car & Kir 344; 2 Mood & R 548; 174 ER 377
Meates v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 308
R v Clarke

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 La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 83
Case: [2020] WASCA 83
Decision Date: 28 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by La Mela against Franklexis Pty Ltd, a company providing motor vehicle repair services, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. La Mela challenged the decision of the Federal Circuit Court regarding the interpretation of a contract for repair services and the court's refusal to grant an adjournment to amend the grounds of appeal. The crux of the dispute lay in whether the dealings between the parties should be viewed as a unilateral contract, or if La Mela had rejected the offer by instructing that a specific part not be installed, leading to a bilateral contract. Additionally, the appeal questioned the costs determination by the magistrate and the primary judge, seeking to determine if any discretionary errors were made that warranted appellate review.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the contract between the parties and the propriety of the refusal to adjourn the appeal hearing and amend the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the magistrate and the primary judge had exercised their discretion correctly in awarding costs. The central concern was whether the court had erred in its interpretation of the contractual relationship and in its exercise of discretion concerning the adjournment and amendment of grounds.

In addressing the issues, the court found that the interpretation of the contract and the exercise of discretion in allowing an adjournment and amendment of grounds were matters that turned on their own facts. The court examined the nature of the communications between the parties to determine if there was a mutual intent to enter into a bilateral contract. It was noted that such determinations were inherently fact-specific and required careful analysis of the particular circumstances of the case. Regarding the costs determination, the court acknowledged that while it had the power to review the exercise of discretion, such review was limited to cases where a clear error was evident. The court held that no such error was apparent in this instance.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the lower court's decisions on the interpretation of the contract, the refusal to adjourn the hearing, and the costs determination. The court's decision underscored the importance of factual specificity in contractual disputes and the limited scope of appellate review in discretionary matters.

Orders