Mary v Schon - [2015] WADC 92

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MARY -v- SCHON [2015] WADC 92

CORAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD: 6 MAY 2015

DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 3629 of 2014

BETWEEN: BRANDON EDWARD MARY
Plaintiff
AND
IVAN THOMAS SCHON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia - Application of the defendant for summary judgment - Claims against managing director for interference with contractual relations - Misleading conduct - Negligent misrepresentation - Sufficiency of pleading

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application successful

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr T J Porter
Defendant: Mr J P Cook

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Integra Legal
Defendant: Mendelawitz Morton

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

Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: According to the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff's employment as general manager of SAS Telecom Pty Ltd (SAS) commenced in March 2007. Subject to SAS achieving budget targets his annual remuneration package included a bonus of 10% of its annual profits.
During a period prior to 31 October 2008 the plaintiff and SAS engaged in negotiations relating to termination of his employment. They then entered into what is characterised as a separation agreement. Apart from the plaintiff's resignation and that for a limited future period SAS would pay to the plaintiff or his nominee a monthly fee for consultancy services, the agreement provided a separation payment for the plaintiff and that SAS would relinquish the right to recover from the plaintiff one half of the balance of his loan account. The agreement was partly written, partly oral and partly implied.
The separation payment was not specified other than that it would be calculated at 10% of the value of the net profit of SAS for the period from 1 July to 31 October 2008 but without any deduction for tax, less the cost of a specified airfare and one-half of the balance of the plaintiff's loan account. Payment was due on 10 November 2008.
The plaintiff alleges a series of breaches of the separation agreement by SAS both by its failure to pay the separation payment and in the process of its calculation.
At all material times the defendant wholly controlled SAS. He was employed by SAS, a shareholder of SAS and its managing director. The plaintiff held the negotiations with the defendant, the written part of the agreement was signed by the defendant and at each of those points the defendant had acted for and on behalf of SAS.
The causes of action put against the defendant are for interference with contractual relations, negligent misrepresentation and loss arising from misleading and deceptive conduct.
The defendant has brought an application for summary judgment in relation to each cause. He has taken on the burden of establishing that he has good defences on the merits.
A cause of action for interference with contractual relations is established upon…

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 Mary v Schon

Details

AGLC: Mary v Schon [2015] WADC 92
Case: [2015] WADC 92
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mary v Schon, the defendant sought summary judgment against the plaintiff's claims for interference with contractual relations, misleading conduct, and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, as managing director of a company, engaged in conduct that interfered with her contractual relationship with the company. Additionally, she claimed that the defendant's conduct was misleading and that he made a negligent misrepresentation during negotiations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently pleaded to warrant a trial and whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff had provided enough detail in her pleadings to allow the defendant to respond adequately to the allegations. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether there were any genuine issues of fact or law that required a trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not sufficiently pleaded to warrant a trial. The plaintiff's statement of claim was considered vague and lacked the necessary detail to enable the defendant to respond effectively. The court held that the plaintiff had not provided enough information to support her claims of interference with contractual relations, misleading conduct, and negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The court ordered that the defendant's application for costs be heard on another day.

Orders