National Exchange Pty Ltd v Hodder - [2005] VSC 91

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 8893 of 2004

NATIONAL EXCHANGE PTY LTD	Appellant
v
CLIVE GERARD HODDER	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 April 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	National Exchange Pty Ltd v Hodder
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 91

---

Appeal from Master on appeal from Magistrates’ Court – Claim in contract – offer and acceptance – findings of fact – no question of law arising – no arguable case – Appeal dismissed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr I. G. Waller	Wilmoth Field Warne
For the Respondent	Mr T. Hurley	Shayne Daley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

These are my reasons for concluding that I should dismiss an appeal from an order of a Master dismissing a proceeding taken by way of an appeal from an order of a Magistrate dismissing a complaint brought by the appellant.

On 3 October 2003, a complaint was filed in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne. The Plaintiff was National Exchange Pty Ltd (“the appellant”) and the Defendant was Clive Gerard Hodder. I will refer to him at times by his full name to distinguish him from his father, Clive Maxwell Hodder, but otherwise generally as “Mr Hodder”. The appellant, by a complaint lodged in the Magistrates’ Court, claimed from Mr Hodder $2,171.19 for breach of contract. On 4 October 2004, following a hearing by way of arbitration before Magistrate Smith, the Magistrate made an order dismissing the complaint. On 3 November 2004, the appellant brought the proceeding in this court appealing against the order of the Magistrate. On 17 December 2004, Master Wheeler dismissed the proceeding. In the formal Court record, there is stated under “Other Matters”: “I accept that the Magistrate did not in terms hold that exhibit “DT-15” was attached to “DT7”however it was open to the Magistrate on the evidence to dismiss the proceeding. Therefore, I find there is no question of law to be decided.” On 22 December 2004, the appellant filed its notice of appeal against that order.

Order 77 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that an appeal from an order of a Master shall be by re-hearing de novo of the application to the Master. Part 3 of Order 58 of the Supreme Court Rules contains the provisions governing the process for dealing with an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court under s.109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. On 1 October 2004, a new Part 3 was substituted. Rule 58.10(8) provides:

“The Master may dismiss the appeal if satisfied that—
(a)the notice of appeal does not identify sufficiently or at all a question of law on which the appeal may be brought;
(b)the appellant does not have an arguable case on appeal or to refuse leave would impose no substantial injustice; or
(c)the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.”

Before me, Mr Waller for…

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 National Exchange Pty Ltd v Hodder 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: [2005] VSC 91
Decision Date: 4 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this matter are National Exchange Pty Ltd, the appellant, and Hodder, the respondent. The dispute originated in the Magistrates' Court and was subsequently appealed to the Master, with further appeal now before the court. The core issue is whether a binding contract was formed between the parties, specifically regarding the sale of a parcel of land. National Exchange Pty Ltd alleged that Hodder breached a contract by failing to sell the land as agreed. Hodder, on the other hand, contested the existence of such a contract.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the elements of contract formation, particularly whether there was a valid offer, acceptance, and intention to create legal relations. The court also had to consider whether the findings of fact made by the lower courts were correct and if there was an arguable case for the appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any question of law arose from the case that warranted further judicial consideration.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the findings of the lower courts. It found that the evidence supported the lower courts' conclusions that no binding contract was formed between the parties. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was a valid offer and acceptance that created a binding agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that the findings of fact made by the lower courts were accurate and that no question of law arose from the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as there was no arguable case for the appellant to pursue. The court's decision affirmed the lower courts' findings and dismissed the appeal.

Orders