Leume Pty Ltd v Chianti Pty Ltd - [2006] WADC 95

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LEUME PTY LTD -v- CHIANTI PTY LTD [2006] WADC 95

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 15 FEBRUARY 2006

DELIVERED : 30 JUNE 2006

FILE NO/S: CIV 91 of 2005

BETWEEN: LEUME PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
CHIANTI PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :REGISTRAR KINGSLEY
File No  :CIV 91 of 2005
Result  :Application dismissed

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal - Whether principal relief sought is at law or in equity - Summary judgment application - Discretionary trusts

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1959
District Court Rules 1996
District Court Rules 2005

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971

Result:

Appeal allowed in part
Summary judgment for the appellant on its claim
Appellant's application for summary judgment in the counterclaim dismissed
Appellant's strike-out application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R C Ioppolo
Respondent: Mr M J Feutrill

Solicitors:

Appellant: Wojtowicz Kelly
Respondent: Gibson & Gibson

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

Bride v The Australian Bank Ltd & Ors, unreported, FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960565
Quinton v Proctor [1998] 4 VR 469
Re Marshall; Marshall v Marshall [1914] 1 Ch 192
Re Sandeman's Wills Trusts; Sanderman v Hayne [1937] 1 All ER 368
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516
Stephenson v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 882

Case(s) also cited:

Angas Law Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Carabelas [2005] HCA 23
Bucknell v Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 155
Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd v Viney [1981] 2 NSWLR 216
Casella v Costin Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 5416; 22 June 1984
Commercial Developments Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Workers' Compensation) Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 208
Commissioner of Inland Revenue (New Zealand) v Ward (1969) ATC 6050
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Snowlake Holdings & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 2823; 30 October 1992
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Fountain Selected Meat (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd (1992) 11 WAR 40
Grundy v Townsend (1888) 36 WR 531
Hampton Goldmining Areas Ltd v Metals Exploration Ltd (1995) 17 WAR 30
Herdegen v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 84 ALR 271
Jacka Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Edwards Karwacki Smith & Co Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 920512; 12 October 1992
Jones v Moylan (2000) 23 WAR 65
Morgan & Son Ltd v S Martin Johnson & Co Ltd [1949] 1 KB 107
Morgan v Pallister [2004] WASC 188
O'Dare v Commissioner of Police Australian Federal Police & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA, Library Number 940048; 17 December 1993
Perth Pallets v QA Pallets & Packaging Pty Ltd…

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 Leume Pty Ltd v Chianti 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: [2006] WADC 95
Decision Date: 30 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leume Pty Ltd, a company, sought summary judgment against Chianti Pty Ltd, also a company, for breach of a contract concerning the sale of shares. The contract also contained a clause that provided for the sale of shares to be held on discretionary trust. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the principal relief sought by Leume was at law or in equity. A further issue was whether the trial judge had the discretion to grant summary judgment in relation to a claim based on a discretionary trust.

The court found that the principal relief sought by Leume was for a declaration that Chianti had breached the contract and for an order for specific performance. This was a legal remedy, not an equitable one. The court also found that the trial judge had the discretion to grant summary judgment in relation to the claim based on a discretionary trust, as the facts of the case did not give rise to any significant dispute as to the existence of the trust or the terms of the trust deed. The court found that the claim in relation to the discretionary trust could be determined as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge had the discretion to grant summary judgment in relation to the claim based on the discretionary trust, and that the principal relief sought by Leume was for a legal remedy. The court found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the claim was equitable in nature. The court remitted the matter to the primary judge for consideration in light of the findings of the court.

Orders