Mason v Cashel Financial Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 69 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mason v Cashel Financial Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 201
Hearing dates: 23 September 2020
Date of orders: 9 March 2021
Decision date: 09 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) The amended summons filed 10 June 2020 is dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Local Court – Leave to appeal – Mixed questions of law and fact – Proper construction of an indemnity clause – Proper construction of deeds of release – Estoppel by representation – Abuse of process – Failure to provide sufficient reasons – Set off – Leave granted in part – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40, 41

Cases Cited:

Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [2001] NSWSC 324

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 424

BCCL v Ali [2001] 1 All ER 961

Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v Troost [2015] NSWCA 64

Cherry v Steele-Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548; [2017] NSWCA 295

Cohen & Co v Ockerby & Co Ltd (1917) 24 CLR 288

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394

County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193

Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Company Ltd [1920] HCA 64; (1920) 28 CLR 305

Cripps v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 81

Electricity Generation Corp v Woodside Energy Ltd; Woodside Energy Ltd v Electricity Generation Corp (2014) 251 CLR 640; (2014) 306 ALR 25

Grant v John Grant and Sons (1954) 91 CLR 112

Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310

Hussain v Shahidulalam [2018] NSWSC 1742

ICS v West Bromwich BS [1998] 1 All ER 98

Karam v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2001] NSWSC 709

King v Lynpete Australia Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 140

Lissenden v CAV Bosch Ltd (1940) AC 412

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 104; (2015) 325 ALR

National Roads and Motorists’ Association v Whitlam [2007] NSWCA 81

Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110

R v PL (2009) 199 A Crim R 199; [2009] NSWCCA 256

Salkeld v Vernon (1758) 1 Eden 64; 28 ER 608

Samways v WorkcoverQueensland [2010] QSC 127

Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634

Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Capitol Carpets Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 223

Shepherds Producers Co-operative Ltd v Lamont [2009] NSWSC 294

Stoker v Adecco Gemvale Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 449

The Council of the Upper Hunter County District v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429

US Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v ABB Service Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 705

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

Zogiannis v Stevens [2012] VSC 264

Texts Cited:

Justice Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Election (2nd ed,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mason v Cashel Financial Services 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
[2021] NSWSC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mason v Cashel Financial Services Pty Ltd, the dispute arose between the plaintiff, Mason, and the defendant, Cashel Financial Services Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to appeal a decision that dismissed his claim for relief against the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the Local Court erred in its construction of an indemnity clause, the deeds of release, and in its application of estoppel by representation. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous and vexatious, and that the court properly dismissed the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Local Court erred in its construction of the indemnity clause, the deeds of release, and the application of estoppel by representation. The court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff's appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and whether the defendant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process. The court further needed to assess whether the Local Court provided sufficient reasons for its decision and whether the plaintiff's claims for set off were properly considered.

The court found that the Local Court erred in its construction of the indemnity clause and the deeds of release. It held that the Local Court did not properly consider the estoppel by representation argument and that the defendant's conduct did amount to an abuse of process. The court found that the Local Court did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision and that the plaintiff's claims for set off were not properly considered. However, the court dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous and vexatious.

The court granted leave to appeal in part, allowing the plaintiff to challenge the construction of the indemnity clause and the deeds of release, as well as the application of estoppel by representation. The court dismissed the appeal in respect of the plaintiff's claims for set off and the finding that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious. The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.