Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Panlyn Australia Pty Ltd - [2023] WADC 3

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   LEADER COMPUTERS PTY LTD -v- PANLYN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2023] WADC 3
CORAM:   REGISTRAR KINGSLEY
HEARD:   30 OCTOBER 2022 & 3 NOVEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   19 JANUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1776 of 2020
BETWEEN:   LEADER COMPUTERS PTY LTD
Plaintiff

AND

PANLYN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
First Defendant

HONG HUA ZIAO
Second Defendant

AUSTIN COMPUTERS PTY LTD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application for summary judgment - No new principles

Legislation:

Australian Consumer Law, s 23, s 24

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J Scovell
First Defendant	:	Mr M Crowley
Second Defendant	:	No appearance
Third Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Oakbridge Lawyers
First Defendant	:	Exceed Legal
Second Defendant	:	Not applicable
Third Defendant	:	Not applicable

Case referred to in decision:

Rhodes v De Castro [2022] WASC 214

REGISTRAR KINGSLEY:

The plaintiff (Leader) has brought a summary judgment application against the first defendant (Panlyn) seeking judgment in the sum of $399,505.50.
Leader's application is supported by the affidavit of Christopher John Pitman, filed 21 June 2022, and the affidavit of Caitlin Margaret Deacy, lodged 18 October 2022. Panlyn has filed an affidavit in opposition through Yonggang Tan, filed 25 August 2022.
Leader's counsel submits, in essence, that Leader's claim against Panlyn is in the sum of $399,505.50 for the purchase and delivery of computer hardware to Panlyn by Leader, pursuant to a written credit agreement entered into on or about 25 May 2018 for which payment has not been made.
As is often the case, the reality is a little more complicated. The third defendant (Austin) granted, by written franchise agreement, a licence to Panlyn to operate the business known as Austin Computers from certain premises. Pursuant to the franchise agreement, Panlyn would pay to Austin a franchising fee.
By notice dated 3 December 2010, Austin gave notice to Panlyn that it was in default of its obligations under the Franchise Agreement and demanded payment of $246,420.50. Panlyn has failed to pay that amount.
On 1 January 2020, Austin took possession of the various stores operated by Panlyn, such taking of possession including all computer supplies that were on the premises.
Panlyn was in default of its leases of the various stores by reason of non‑payment of rent. The landlords of the various stores have assigned their debt to Austin. Austin has brought proceedings in this court against Panlyn and Panlyn's guarantors.
Leader, pursuant to an agreement entered into on or about 25 May 2018, supplied computer material to Panlyn which Panlyn incorporated into computer hardware and on sold that hardware to third parties.
Pursuant to the agreement, the legal and beneficial ownership of the goods remained with Leader for so long as Panlyn has paid the invoice price. All the goods supplied by Leader fell under the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) and Panlyn acknowledged that Leader had been granted a security interest and consented to Leader registering…

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 Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Panlyn Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2023] WADC 3
Decision Date: 19 JANUARY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leader Computers Pty Ltd filed an application for summary judgment against Panlyn Australia Pty Ltd, seeking payment for goods sold and delivered. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary focus of the dispute was whether Leader Computers had a valid claim for the outstanding debt, and if Panlyn Australia had any valid defences or counter-claims that could prevent the entry of judgment in Leader Computers' favour.

The court needed to determine whether Leader Computers had established a prima facie case for recovery of the debt and whether Panlyn Australia had any valid defence or counter-claim that could defeat the application. This involved examining the evidence provided by both parties, including the terms of the sales agreement, delivery of the goods, and any communications between the parties regarding payment.

In its reasoning, the court found that Leader Computers had clearly established a prima facie case for recovery of the debt. The court noted that the goods had been sold and delivered in accordance with the terms of the agreement, and there was no evidence of any dispute or issue concerning the quality or delivery of the goods. The court further found that Panlyn Australia had not provided any evidence of a valid defence or counter-claim that could defeat the application for summary judgment. The court held that Leader Computers was entitled to judgment in its favour for the outstanding debt, along with interest and costs.

The court made an order that Leader Computers recover from Panlyn Australia the sum of $25,000, plus interest from the date of the judgement until the date of satisfaction, and costs of the application. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for a directions hearing to determine the method and date of payment.

Orders