Onesteel Trading Pty Ltd v Ewing International Limited Partnership

Onesteel Trading Pty Ltd (Onesteel) sought permission to appeal a decision of a Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from Onesteel's claim based on a deed of settlement and release. The Master had refused Onesteel's application for summary judgment, and Onesteel sought to appeal this refusal.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Master erred in refusing permission to re-open the hearing to receive further affidavit evidence, and whether the Master correctly determined that Onesteel had not established a prima facie case for summary judgment. Central to these issues was the question of whether the deed of settlement and release had been validly executed by all parties, particularly in light of the corporate structures and the absence of company seals in some instances.

The Full Court considered the execution of the deed by the defendant companies, which were incorporated in New Zealand, and Ewing International Limited Partnership, registered in Victoria. The Master had found that Gemahw Pty Ltd was the general partner of Ewing LP and assumed it had the power to bind Ewing LP. However, there was no evidence before the Master establishing that Mr Ewing and Mr Heard, who signed on behalf of Ewing LP, were directors of Gemahw. Furthermore, for Ewing Construction, the deed provided for the affixing of a common seal, which was not done, and there was no evidence of Mr Heard's authority as General Manager. Similarly, for Jermah, the deed required a common seal, which was absent, and while Mr Duggan signed as Director, there was no evidence of his authority. The Master was not persuaded that the proposed affidavit evidence would overcome these deficiencies.

The Full Court refused permission to appeal. The Court found that the Master's decision was not attended by error, and that the appeal did not raise issues of general principle that warranted leave. The Court concluded that Onesteel had not demonstrated that it was entitled to summary judgment.