Mistral International Pty Ltd v Polstead Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWCA 321

CITATION: MISTRAL INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Formerly known as Ringgrip Pty Ltd) v POLSTEAD PTY LTD [2002] NSWCA 321

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41031/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26 August 2002, 27 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 October 2002

PARTIES :

Mistral International Pty Ltd - Appellant
Polstead Pty Ltd - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Beazley JA at 124

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 5527/98

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Naughton DCJ

COUNSEL: J T Gleeson SC/S J Stanton - Appellant
D Cassidy QC/C K Stewart/N Potts - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Aitken McLachlan & Thorpe - Appellant
Dominic David Stamfords - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: SALE OF GOODS - merchantable quality - rejection of expert evidence - insufficient reasons given for rejection of evidence - apprehension of bias - new trial ordered

LEGISLATION CITED: Sale of Goods Act 1923
Suitors' Fund Act 1951

CASES CITED:
Moylan v Nutrasweet Company [2000] NSWCA 337
Australian Knitting Mills Limited & Anor v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [1936] AC 85
George Wills & Co Limited v Davids Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 77
Lawry v West (1947) 73 CLR 289
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the judgment and orders made by Judge Naughton on 14 December 2000; 3. Direct a new trial before a Judge of the District Court other than Judge Naughton; 4. The costs of the first trial to be in the discretion of the Judge hearing the new trial; 5. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal.

CA 41031/00
DC 5527/98

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
BEAZLEY JA

MISTRAL INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Formerly known as Ringgrip Pty Ltd) v POLSTEAD PTY LTD

The appeal was from two decisions of Judge Naughton QC of the District Court.

The plaintiff claimed approximately $280,000 from the defendant on account of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff was the manufacturer, importer and wholesaler of goods which included cases designed to fit mobile telephones (phone cases). The defendant carried on the business of purchasing and re-selling accessories used in connection with mobile telephones, including phone cases.

When customers began returning phone cases as broken or defective, the defendant set aside and quarantined substantial numbers of phone cases. The defendant's employees conducted tests on the quarantined phone cases by the process of sampling in batches. Batches were also sent for testing by the defendant's expert.

The defendant filed a defence and cross-claim which alleged that the plaintiff had delivered phone cases to it which were unmerchantable because of a defect in the clip mechanism on the phone cases. The defendant claimed amounts which totalled approximately $755,000 (the price of 46% of phone cases provided by the plaintiff).

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant recovered on its cross-claim the price paid for 200 phone cases which the trial Judge found to be of unmerchantable quality.

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 Mistral International Pty Ltd v Polstead 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: [2002] NSWCA 321
Decision Date: 21 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mistral International Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of Judge Naughton in the District Court. The dispute concerned the sale of goods, specifically whether the goods were of merchantable quality.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Judge Naughton had erred in rejecting expert evidence tendered by the appellant. The court also considered whether the judge's reasons for rejecting the evidence were insufficient and whether there was an apprehension of bias in the judge's conduct.

The Court of Appeal found that Judge Naughton had failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's expert evidence. The court held that the judge's reasons were not sufficiently articulated to allow for proper appellate review. Furthermore, the court concluded that the circumstances surrounding the rejection of the evidence, coupled with certain remarks made by the judge, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and orders made by Judge Naughton on 14 December 2000 and directed a new trial before a different judge of the District Court. The costs of the first trial were left to the discretion of the judge hearing the new trial, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the judgment and orders made by Judge Naughton on 14 December 2000; 3. Direct a new trial before a Judge of the District Court other than Judge Naughton; 4. The costs of the first trial to be in the discretion of the Judge hearing the new trial; 5. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal.

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.

CITATION:	MISTRAL INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD (Formerly known as Ringgrip Pty Ltd) v POLSTEAD PTY LTD [2002] NSWCA 321
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 41031/00
HEARING DATE(S):	26 August 2002, 27 August 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	21 October 2002
PARTIES :	Mistral International Pty Ltd - Appellant Polstead Pty Ltd - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Beazley JA at 124

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	5527/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Naughton DCJ

COUNSEL:	J T Gleeson SC/S J Stanton - Appellant D Cassidy QC/C K Stewart/N Potts - Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aitken McLachlan & Thorpe - Appellant Dominic David Stamfords - Respondent
CATCHWORDS:	SALE OF GOODS - merchantable quality - rejection of expert evidence - insufficient reasons given for rejection of evidence - apprehension of bias - new trial ordered
LEGISLATION CITED:	Sale of Goods Act 1923 Suitors' Fund Act 1951
CASES CITED:	Moylan v Nutrasweet Company [2000] NSWCA 337 Australian Knitting Mills Limited & Anor v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited [1936] AC 85 George Wills & Co Limited v Davids Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 77 Lawry v West (1947) 73 CLR 289 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568
DECISION:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the judgment and orders made by Judge Naughton on 14 December 2000; 3. Direct a new trial before a Judge of the District Court other than Judge Naughton; 4. The costs of the first trial to be in the discretion of the Judge hearing the new trial; 5. The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal.