La Vie Developments Pty Ltd v Illawarra Regional Development Group Pty Ltd - [2013] NSWSC 748

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: La Vie Developments Pty Ltd v Illawarra Regional Development Group Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 748
Hearing dates: 4 June 2013
Decision date: 05 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Appeal allowed in part.

Catchwords: Appeal from Local Court - agreement for consultancy services - parties to the contract - whether Plaintiff entitled to payment - whether Defendant owed payment obligation - whether notice given of termination.
Legislation Cited: Local Court Act 2007
Cases Cited: - Alchin v Daley [2009] NSWCA 418
- Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd and Anor v Ken Morgan Motors Pty Ltd and Ors [1994] 2 VR 106
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: La Vie Developments Pty Ltd (atf Dobre Trust) (Plaintiff)
Illawarra Regional Development Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
J.M. White, N. Mirzai (Plaintiff)
B. Loukas (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Maurice Marshan (Plaintiff)
Joe Weller & Associates (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/226435
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9109

Date of Decision:

2012-06-25 00:00:00

Before:

Ryan LCM

File Number(s):

2011/015188

EX TEMPORE Judgment

This is an appeal by La Vie Developments Pty Limited ("La Vie") against a judgment for $27,935.83 together with costs entered against it by the Local Court in favour of Illawarra Regional Development Group Pty Ltd ("IRDG"). IRDG had sued La Vie for moneys it alleged were owing pursuant to an oral consultancy agreement.

Background

At all relevant times the relevant principals of each of IRDG and La Vie were Mr Wilkinson and Dr Gooley respectively. It seems that, for a number of years, Dr Gooley and La Vie had been pursuing a proposal which involved the re-zoning of land owned by La Vie, and the obtaining of approval for the construction of a private hospital precinct on that property.

Mr Wilkinson met Dr Gooley in 2007 and offered to provide services as a consultant. In his witness statement tendered in the Local Court, Dr Gooley described a number of dealings between himself and Mr Wilkinson and their respective companies in the calendar years 2007 and 2008. It is not necessary to consider those dealings in any detail as ultimately they were not relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties and were not the subject of any findings of fact by the presiding magistrate.

It was common ground that in January 2009 Dr Gooley and Mr Wilkinson had, on behalf of La Vie and IRDG respectively, reached some form of agreement for the supply of consultancy services in exchange for the payment of a monthly amount of $8,020 including GST. I will return to discuss the terms of the arrangement as found by the presiding magistrate in more detail later in these reasons.

At present it need only be noted that under those arrangements, consideration was given to payment of the sum of $8,020 pursuant to a number of invoices issued by different entities. The consultancy agreement continued until October 2010 when, according to her Honour, it was terminated by IRDG.

IRDG's Claim

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 La Vie Developments Pty Ltd v Illawarra Regional Development... 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: [2013] NSWSC 748
Decision Date: 05 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Local Court was called upon to determine a dispute between La Vie Developments Pty Ltd and Illawarra Regional Development Group Pty Ltd regarding a consultancy agreement. La Vie Developments, the plaintiff, sought payment from Illawarra Regional Development, the defendant, for services rendered under the consultancy agreement. The defendant, however, refused to pay, asserting that the agreement was void or had been properly terminated. The case required the court to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment, whether the defendant owed any payment obligations, and whether proper notice was given for the termination of the agreement.

The central issue was the validity of the consultancy agreement and the circumstances under which it could be terminated. The court needed to ascertain whether the agreement was indeed in place and binding on both parties. Furthermore, it had to determine if the defendant had any outstanding financial obligations to the plaintiff and whether the defendant had followed the correct procedures for terminating the agreement. The court examined the terms of the agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence presented regarding the termination notice.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the consultancy agreement was valid and binding. It determined that the defendant did owe payment to the plaintiff for services rendered. The court also concluded that the defendant had not provided proper notice of termination, as required by the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, granting judgment for the amount claimed and costs. The court's decision affirmed the enforceability of the consultancy agreement and highlighted the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and termination procedures.

Orders