MADER -v- LIM [2016] WADC 110

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 110
Case No:	APP:122/2014	Heard:	11 MARCH 2016
Coram:	LEVY DCJ	Delivered:	29/07/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY MADER LAUREN AMANDA BECKWITH JOYCE BEE HONG LIM
Catchwords:	Appeal against decision of magistrate Breach of contract Agency Partnership Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 58
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 40 Partnership Act 1895 s7(1) and s 7(2)
Case References:	Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72 Petersen v Moloney (1951) 84 CLR 91 United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MADER -v- LIM [2016] WADC 110 CORAM : LEVY DCJ HEARD : 11 MARCH 2016 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 122 of 2014 BETWEEN : BRADLEY MADER

First Appellant

LAUREN AMANDA BECKWITH

Second Appellant

AND

JOYCE BEE HONG LIM

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE GLUESTEIN

File No : JOO/GCLM 367 of 2012, JOO/GCLM 2420 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal against decision of magistrate - Breach of contract - Agency - Partnership - Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 58

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3)

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 40
Partnership Act 1895 s7(1) and s 7(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant : Ms N McVay

Second Appellant : Ms N McVay

Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

First Appellant : McVay Bates & Associates

Second Appellant : McVay Bates & Associates

Respondent : Not applicable

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

Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
Petersen v Moloney (1951) 84 CLR 91
United Dominions Corp Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1

LEVY DCJ

Introduction

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Magistrate Gluestein sitting in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Joondalup in relation to general procedure claim 2420 of 2013.

2 Mr Bradley Mader (the first appellant) and Ms Lauren Amanda Beckwith (second appellant) appealed against the decision of Magistrate Gluestein dismissing the appellants' claim against Ms Joyce Bee Hong Lim (the respondent) being claim 2420 of 2013. The plaintiffs' claim against the respondent was for $75,000 plus costs. The claim centred around the sum of $58,000 which had been provided by the appellants to Ms Deborah O'Halloran. The appellants contended that they had lent the money to Ms O'Halloran who then, in partnership or by way of a joint venture with the respondent, had used the money to pay the deposit required to purchase a property. Ms O'Halloran claimed the money was a gift. The respondent denied that she was liable in any way.

3 It should be noted that at the time of dismissing the claim against the respondent, the learned magistrate upheld a separate claim brought by the…

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 Mader v Lim

Details

AGLC: Mader v Lim [2016] WADC 110
Case: [2016] WADC 110
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mader v Lim was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Mader, the appellant, sought to appeal the decision of a magistrate. The original dispute involved a claim for breach of contract, specifically concerning an agency agreement and issues related to partnership and the Bankruptcy Act 1966 section 58. The respondent, Lim, defended the decision, arguing that the magistrate's findings were correct and that Mader's claims were without merit.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate correctly interpreted the terms of the agency agreement, the existence or otherwise of a partnership between the parties, and the applicability of section 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The court needed to determine if Mader's claims were valid under the contract and whether Lim's actions warranted a finding of breach. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Bankruptcy Act applied to the circumstances of the case and if so, how it affected the contractual obligations between the parties.

The Supreme Court found that the magistrate's decision was sound and that the interpretation of the agency agreement was correctly applied. The court held that there was no evidence to support the existence of a partnership between the parties, and therefore, any claims predicated on partnership were unfounded. Regarding the Bankruptcy Act, the court determined that section 58 did not apply to the case, as Lim had not been declared bankrupt during the relevant period. The court concluded that Mader's appeal was without merit and dismissed it. As a result, the original decision of the magistrate was upheld, and no further action could be taken by Mader in relation to the breach of contract claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.