Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd v Xia

Link copied
Case Copied 69 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd v Xia [2018] NSWCA 290
Hearing dates: 27 June 2018
Decision date: 28 November 2018
Before: McColl JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Sackville AJA at [123]
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed in part.

 

2. Set aside the judgment in favour of Ms Xia on her claim in the amount of $268,739.14 plus interest in the amount of $52,926.17 dated 31 August 2017, and in lieu thereof, enter judgment in favour of Ms Xia in the amount of $210,767.73 plus interest, with effect from 31 August 2017.

 

3. Direct the parties to file and serve, within 7 days, an agreed calculation of interest, or their separate calculations of interest, for the purposes of order 2 above.

 4. Pacific Shoji to pay 60% of Ms Xia’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords:

CONTRACT – damages for repayment of loan – whether primary judge erred in finding that money paid by plaintiff to defendant was by way of loan – held primary judge erred in finding money was lent to defendant

 

CONTRACT – damages for failure to pay commission – primary judge found informal agreement for payment of 10% commission if plaintiff could find buyer for defendant's factory – whether sufficient evidence to sustain findings – whether commission payable in circumstances where sale not achieved until employee’s contract terminated – whether appellant permitted to run different case on appeal – appellant precluded from running new case on appeal

  EMPLOYMENT – contract of employment – whether employee sold goods on credit to other customers – employee concealed fact from employer – whether breach of contract – whether employer entitled to damages for unpaid price of those goods – held breach established, but employer failed to establish breach had caused any loss
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2018 (NSW), Schedule 1
Cases Cited: Australian Wholesale Meats (Sydney) v S&R Cool Logistics Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1541
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; 75 ALJR 312
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33
Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 219
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 202 CLR 351; [2001] HCA 2
Xia v Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 161
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Helen Rong Xia (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D A Lloyd (Appellant)
Steven Sher (Solicitor) (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Macedone Legal Solicitors (Appellant)
Drayton Sher Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/228840
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2017] NSWDC 161
Date of Decision:
30 June 2017
Before:
Gibson DCJ
File Number(s):
2014/183557

Judgment

  1. McCOLL JA: I agree with Leeming JA’s reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.

  2. LEEMING JA: Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd appeals from…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd v Xia 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
[2018] NSWCA 290
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the primary judge in favour of Ms Xia. The dispute concerned claims arising from an employment contract, including allegations of a loan, unpaid commission, and damages for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that certain moneys paid by Pacific Shoji to Ms Xia were by way of loan, and whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the primary judge's findings regarding an informal agreement for commission. Further, the court considered whether commission was payable when the sale of the factory was achieved after Ms Xia's employment contract had terminated, and whether Pacific Shoji was permitted to advance a different case on appeal. The court also had to assess whether Ms Xia's concealment of sales to other customers constituted a breach of her employment contract and if Pacific Shoji was entitled to damages for the unpaid price of those goods.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge erred in concluding that the moneys paid to Ms Xia were a loan, and therefore set aside that part of the judgment. Regarding the commission claim, the court held that while an informal agreement for commission existed, Pacific Shoji was precluded from arguing on appeal that the sale was not achieved due to Ms Xia's actions, as this was a new case not run at trial. However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment amount awarded to Ms Xia. The court also found that Ms Xia had breached her contract by concealing sales to other customers, but Pacific Shoji failed to establish that this breach caused any loss.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The judgment in favour of Ms Xia for the loan claim was set aside, and judgment was entered for Ms Xia in a reduced amount for the commission claim, with interest. The parties were directed to agree on the calculation of interest. Pacific Shoji was ordered to pay 60% of Ms Xia’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the judgment in favour of Ms Xia on her claim in the amount of $268,739.14 plus interest in the amount of $52,926.17 dated 31 August 2017, and in lieu thereof, enter judgment in favour of Ms Xia in the amount of $210,767.73 plus interest, with effect from 31 August 2017.

3. Direct the parties to file and serve, within 7 days, an agreed calculation of interest, or their separate calculations of interest, for the purposes of order 2 above.

4. Pacific Shoji to pay 60% of Ms Xia’s costs of the 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.