POLYLINE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD -v- ACUS WATER PTY LTD [2016] WADC 69

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 69
Case No:	CIV:3334/2015	Heard:	6 MAY 2016
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	30/05/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment set aside
PDF Version

Parties:	POLYLINE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD ACUS WATER PTY LTD NIGEL TREVOR WARIN
Catchwords:	Practice Application to set aside judgment Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : POLYLINE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD -v- ACUS WATER PTY LTD [2016] WADC 69 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 6 MAY 2016 DELIVERED : 30 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 3334 of 2015 BETWEEN : POLYLINE INDUSTRIES PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ACUS WATER PTY LTD

First Defendant

NIGEL TREVOR WARIN

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application to set aside judgment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment set aside

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G Lacarenza

First Defendant : Mr G Metaxas

Second Defendant : Mr G Metaxas

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Lacarenza & Associates

First Defendant : Metaxas & Hager

Second Defendant : Metaxas & Hager

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

Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67

1 REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff by counterclaim (ACUS) entered default judgment on 8 February 2016. The defendant by counterclaim (Polyline) now seeks to set aside that judgment.

Background

2 The writ was issued in September 2015 and, by way of a directions hearing, came before a registrar in the commercial list chambers on 18 November 2015. At that hearing orders were made that the plaintiff file and serve its statement of claim by 16 December 2015, the defendant file and serve a defence and counterclaim by 13 January 2016, and the plaintiff file and serve any reply and defence to the counterclaim by 27 January 2016.

3 The orders on 18 November 2015 also provided that, on or before 10 February 2016, each party to make a list of documents verified on oath. The directions hearing was adjourned to 19 February 2016 at 9.30 am.

4 On 8 February 2016 the plaintiff's solicitors filed an application pursuant to O 8 r 7 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 seeking orders that they have leave to withdraw from the record. The application was listed for hearing on 18 February 2016 at 9.30 am. On 18 February 2016, after hearing the solicitor for Polyline, and David Wilkie (Wilkie), a director of Polyline, the O 8 r 7 application was adjourned to 17 March 2016.

5 On 8 February 2016, ACUS, as plaintiff by counterclaim, entered default judgment in the counterclaim for liquidated damages.

6 On 19 February 2016 at the return of the directions hearing, and after hearing from a solicitor from Park Legal Solutions and the defendant's solicitor, orders were made extending the time for each party to…

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 Polyline Industries Pty Ltd v Acus Water 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: [2016] WADC 69
Decision Date: 30 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Polyline Industries Pty Ltd brought an application against Acus Water Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court seeking to set aside a judgment previously entered against it. The dispute between the parties involved a contract for the supply of water meters, which led to a claim by Polyline for damages due to alleged breaches by Acus. The case was initially decided in favour of Acus, with a judgment entered against Polyline. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Polyline applied to set aside the judgment, arguing that there were grounds to do so based on the unique facts of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the application to set aside the judgment was meritorious. This involved examining the grounds upon which Polyline sought to set aside the judgment, including whether there were any procedural errors, new evidence, or other factors that justified setting the judgment aside. The court had to assess the credibility and relevance of the arguments put forward by Polyline and consider whether the judgment should be set aside on the basis that it was obtained unfairly or that there were significant errors in the proceedings.

The court found that the application to set aside the judgment was well-founded. It identified specific procedural errors and instances of unfairness that warranted the judgment being set aside. The court held that the judgment should be vacated and a new trial ordered. The reasoning was based on the significant procedural irregularities and the impact these had on the fairness of the original proceedings. The court concluded that the judgment was obtained in circumstances that did not reflect a fair and just process, thereby justifying the setting aside of the judgment.

The final orders of the court were that the judgment previously entered against Polyline Industries Pty Ltd be set aside and that a new trial be ordered to resolve the dispute between the parties. This decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings and underscored the court's willingness to rectify errors that may have prejudiced a party's rights.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment set aside

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.