P B & E L Wright Pty Ltd v Craig Martin Pty Ltd - [2002] VSC 304

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. N00837241

In the Matter of an Appeal under s. 109 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989

Between:

P.B. & E.L. Wright Pty Ltd	Appellant
v
Craig Martin Pty Ltd	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2, 3 May 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 August 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	P.B. & E.L. Wright Pty Ltd v Craig Martin Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 304

---

Magistrates’ Court: appeal from final order of court, analysis of and true meaning of judgment, power invested in court under s. 110(1) and (2) of Magistrates’ Court Act on application of a fourth party where on trial of proceedings including third and fourth party proceedings final orders made against fourth party who did not appear, extent of discretion under s. 110(2) of Magistrates’ Court Act: no error of law on finding of fact.

Magistrates’ Court Act ss. 109, 110(1)-(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M.A. Scarfo	Di Mauro Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr S. Wilson QC with Mr G. Meehan	Geoffrey Dillon & Co

HIS HONOUR:

The proceeding before the Court is an appeal brought pursuant to s. 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 and pursuant to the procedure under Part 3 of Order 58 of the General Civil Procedure Rules of this Court. The appeal is brought against an order made in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne on 20 August 2001 in a proceeding numbered P0014731 (which in this judgment I shall refer to as “the second proceeding”) and in which the appellant, P.B. and E.L. Wright Pty Ltd (“Wright”), was plaintiff and the respondent, Craig Martin Pty Ltd (“Martin”), was defendant. On that day and in that proceeding, it was ordered that the application of the plaintiff, Wright, for summary judgment against the defendant be refused and that Wright pay to Martin costs fixed at $3,653 together with reserved costs of 23 April 2001 fixed in the amount of $600. It was further ordered that the application of the defendant, Martin, brought in those proceedings to strike out the proceedings, be granted and “that proceeding P0014731 is struck out”. On that day and in Proceeding No. N00837241 (which in this judgment I shall refer to as “the first proceeding”) in which Booran Motors Sales Pty Ltd (“Booran”) was the plaintiff, Martin was the defendant, Wright was the third party and one John Flack was the fourth party, an application brought by Wright, the third party, against Booran, plaintiff, was refused and Wright was ordered to pay Booran costs fixed at $2,263. The order in Proceeding No. N00837241 is not the subject of this appeal, but the proceeding before the Magistrates’ Court in that proceeding and orders made by the Court in that proceeding are relevant to have regard to as they provide the background to and a better understanding of the nature of the proceeding…

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 P B & E L Wright Pty Ltd v Craig Martin 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] VSC 304
Decision Date: 7 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of P B & E L Wright Pty Ltd v Craig Martin Pty Ltd involved a dispute between two companies, where the former sought relief against the latter for an alleged breach of contract. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, with the court having to determine the extent of its powers under the Magistrates’ Court Act to make orders against a party that did not appear in the proceedings. The case involved a fourth party, who was not a party to the original proceedings but had an interest in the outcome of the case. The court had to consider the provisions of the Magistrates’ Court Act, including sections 109 and 110(1)-(4), which deal with the court’s power to make orders against a party who does not appear in the proceedings.

The court had to decide whether it had the power to make orders against the fourth party, who did not appear in the proceedings, and whether it had erred in law in finding that the fourth party had breached a contract with the plaintiff. The court also had to consider the extent of its discretion under section 110(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act in making orders against the fourth party. The court had to balance the need to protect the rights of the fourth party with the need to ensure that justice was served in the case.

The court held that it had the power to make orders against the fourth party under section 110(1) and (2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act. The court found that there was no error of law in its finding that the fourth party had breached a contract with the plaintiff. The court held that it had discretion under section 110(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act to make orders against the fourth party, and that it had exercised that discretion appropriately in the circumstances of the case. The court found that it was not necessary to consider the appeal on the basis of any alleged error of law, as there was no error of law in the findings of fact made by the court.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the final orders made against the fourth party. The court held that the fourth party was liable for the breach of contract and that the orders made against it were appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders