Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd - [2019] NSWCATCD 31

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 31
Hearing dates: 6 December 2018
Date of orders: 03 April 2019
Decision date: 03 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: A J Halstead, General Member
Decision:
1. The proceedings are transferred from the Motor Vehicle List to the General Consumer List.
2. The respondent, Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd is to pay the applicant, Lynda Napier and Robert Napier $19,839.47 on or before 30 April 2019.
Catchwords: Importation of motor vehicle, verbal contract, bailment, agency, place of contract
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Fair Trading Act 1987
Motor Dealer and Repairers Act 2013
Cases Cited: EMI (New Zealand) Ltd v William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NZLR 566
Soames v London & SW Rly Co (1919) 88 LJ KB 524
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lynda Napier & Robert Napier (Applicant)
Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
G Adelstein (Applicant)
L Babister (Respondent)

File Number(s): MV 18/39862
Publication restriction: Not applicable

reasons for decision

Procedural history

The proceedings were commenced by an application made on 13 September 2018 and relate to a claim for damage to a motor vehicle. The matter first came before the Tribunal for conciliation and hearing on 16 October 2018 at Liverpool. The parties both attended that listing in person. In accordance with the Tribunal’s usual practice where both parties are present in person, prior to the case being called, the parties were provided with an opportunity to attempt to resolve the dispute cooperatively; this was not successful. The application was then adjourned for hearing on a date to be fixed by the Registrar. Directions were made for the parties to exchange and file documentary evidence they intended to rely upon at the hearing. Leave was also granted for the parties to be legally represented.
On 18 October 2018 the Registrar listed the matter for hearing on 6 December 2018 and sent related notices to the parties.
On 25 October 2018 the applicant requested an extension of time to comply with the orders made on 16 October 2018. On 30 October 2018 the respondent stated there was no objection to the extension of time request and also applied to the Tribunal for an interlocutory hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.
On 2 November 2018 the Tribunal made ex-parte orders extending the timetable for the exchange of evidence and written submissions. The application for an interlocutory hearing on jurisdiction was refused and it was noted the issue could be dealt with at hearing.
On 20 November 2018 the applicant requested the proceedings be transferred from the Motor Vehicles List to the General Consumer List. The Registrar replied on 21 November 2018 that the issue would be dealt with by the Tribunal at hearing.
A hearing of the application occurred on 6 December 2018 at Liverpool when both parties attended and were represented by legal practitioners. 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 Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 31
Case: [2019] NSWCATCD 31
Decision Date: 03 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd was heard in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court. The dispute involved the importation of a motor vehicle, a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, from the United States to Australia. The applicants, Lynda and Robert Napier, alleged that they had entered into a verbal agreement with the respondent, Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd, for the importation of the vehicle. They claimed that the respondent had breached this agreement by failing to deliver the vehicle as promised. The respondents argued that no binding contract was formed and that the applicants had no legal standing to claim the vehicle.

The legal issues before the court included whether a verbal contract was valid and enforceable, whether the respondent had acted as an agent or bailee for the applicants, and the jurisdiction of the court over the matter. The court had to determine whether the verbal agreement between the parties constituted a legally binding contract and whether the respondent was liable for breach of contract or for acting as an agent or bailee. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute and whether the Motor Vehicle List or the General Consumer List was the correct jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicants and the respondent had entered into a verbal agreement for the importation of the vehicle, and that the respondent had failed to deliver the vehicle as promised. The court determined that the verbal contract was valid and enforceable, and that the respondent had breached the agreement by not delivering the vehicle. The court also found that the respondent had acted as an agent for the applicants in relation to the importation of the vehicle. Given the nature of the dispute and the amount in question, the court decided that the General Consumer List was the appropriate forum for resolving the matter. Consequently, the proceedings were transferred from the Motor Vehicle List to the General Consumer List.

The court ordered that the respondent, Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd, pay the applicants, Lynda and Robert Napier, the sum of $19,839.47 on or before 30 April 2019. The court also ordered that the proceedings be transferred from the Motor Vehicle List to the General Consumer List.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings are transferred from the Motor Vehicle List to the General Consumer List.

2. The respondent, Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd is to pay the applicant, Lynda Napier and Robert Napier $19,839.47 on or before 30 April 2019.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Napier v Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 31
Hearing dates:	6 December 2018
Date of orders:	03 April 2019
Decision date:	03 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	A J Halstead, General Member
Decision:	1. The proceedings are transferred from the Motor Vehicle List to the General Consumer List. 2. The respondent, Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd is to pay the applicant, Lynda Napier and Robert Napier $19,839.47 on or before 30 April 2019.
Catchwords:	Importation of motor vehicle, verbal contract, bailment, agency, place of contract
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Fair Trading Act 1987 Motor Dealer and Repairers Act 2013
Cases Cited:	EMI (New Zealand) Ltd v William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd [1976] 2 NZLR 566 Soames v London & SW Rly Co (1919) 88 LJ KB 524
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lynda Napier & Robert Napier (Applicant) Lone Star US Imports Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitor: G Adelstein (Applicant) L Babister (Respondent)
File Number(s):	MV 18/39862
Publication restriction:	Not applicable