Polglaze Nominees Pty Ltd v Rooke - [2003] WADC 49

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: POLGLAZE NOMINEES PTY LTD -v- ROOKE [2003] WADC 49

CORAM: NISBET DCJ

HEARD: 10 FEBRUARY 2003

DELIVERED : 11 MARCH 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1633 of 2001

BETWEEN: POLGLAZE NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 008 786 892)
Plaintiff
AND
HOWARD WILLIAM ROOKE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Amendment to counterclaim - Appeal from Deputy Registrar - Declaratory relief sought - Jurisdiction of District Court - Remit to Supreme Court

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr R H B Pringle QC
Defendant: Mr P P McCann

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Granich Partners
Defendant: Jonathan Eastoe

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 238
Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721
Malliaros v Moralis [1992] 2 VR 501
Trimble v Piggott (1995) 14 WAR 329

Case(s) also cited:

Commercial Development Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 208
DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423

NISBET DCJ: This matter has a somewhat complex history which has to be examined in order to understand why the plaintiff brings an appeal against the decision of the learned Deputy Registrar of this Court made 22 October 2002.
By its statement of claim, amended and filed in court 7 September 2001 the plaintiff pleaded:
"2.In or about May 1995, the defendant —
(a)was a real estate sales representative;
(b)orally requested Mr Bramley to assist him (the defendant) to become qualified as a licensed estate agent and holder of a triennial certificate under the Real Estate and Business Agents Act by undertaking and completing a course of study, the assistance to be in the form of monthly advances to him (the defendant) and in consideration he would not only repay the advances but would also split equally his commissions on the sale of strata titled units (on strata plan 31962) ('the development') for which he would be given the sole listing by the developer, Harwin Holdings Pty Ltd ('the developer')
3.In or about July 1995, the defendant showed Mr and Mrs Bramley a spread-sheet setting out a cash flow forecast which the defendant orally represented related to sales of strata units in the development through his agency, and which embodied figures for—
…
and which showed that all advances would be repaid by January 1997."
The plaintiff then pleaded out a cause of action based on the collateral oral contract to repay all advances by January 1997 leaving its claims for half the commissions on units sold up to the date of issue of the writ, to be determined at a later time. The reason for this was that the nature of the development had changed from the time when the defendant made his initial representations to the plaintiff and secured the plaintiff's financial assistance. Whereas originally it was contemplated that three blocks of units would be built…

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 Polglaze Nominees Pty Ltd v Rooke 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: [2003] WADC 49
Decision Date: 11 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Polglaze Nominees Pty Ltd appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of the District Court of New South Wales, who dismissed their application to amend a counterclaim in a proceeding. The application for amendment sought declaratory relief regarding the status of certain land, and the Deputy Registrar declined jurisdiction, referring the matter to the Supreme Court. The appeal centred on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions concerning the District Court's jurisdiction to hear claims for declaratory relief and whether the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over such claims.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim for declaratory relief and, if not, whether the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court. The court considered the statutory provisions, including sections 23 and 24 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), to ascertain the scope of the District Court's jurisdiction in relation to declaratory relief. The court also examined the nature of the relief sought by Polglaze Nominees and whether it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The court found that the Deputy Registrar's decision to remit the matter to the Supreme Court was correct. It held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim for declaratory relief, as such claims generally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the statutory provisions indicated a clear demarcation of jurisdiction between the District Court and the Supreme Court, with the latter having exclusive jurisdiction over matters seeking declaratory relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Orders