Quach v Huntof Pty Limited - [2000] NSWSC 932

CITATION: Quach v Huntof Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 932

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12528/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 October 2000

PARTIES :

Kien Nam Quach (Plaintiff)
Huntof Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Andrew Weston (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 160875/97

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Mrs G Madgwick LCM

COUNSEL : A Ogborne (Plaintiff)
C Birch SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Thorneycroft Appleton (Plaintiff)
Robertson Saxton Primrose Dunn (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS - maintenance and champerty - hire of motor vehicles - champertous agreement - no defence to action by motorist against negligent driver of other vehicle involved in accident

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902, Part 5
Local Court (Civil Claims) Rules 1988, Pt 8 r 3

CASES CITED: Re Tosich Constructions Pty Limited (1997) 143 ALR 18
Giles v Thompson [1993] 3 All ER 321
Martell v Consett Iron Co Limited [1955] Ch 363
Stevens v Keogh (1946) 72 CLR 1
Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679
Elborough v Ayres (1870) LR 10 Eq 367
Skelton v Baxter [1916] 2 KB 321
Wild v Simpson [1919] 2 KB 544
Kroeker v Harkema Express Lines Limited (1973) 42 DLR (3D) 350
Magic Menu Systems v AFA Facilitation Ltd (1997) 72 FCR 261
Roux v Australian Broadcating Commission [1992] 2 VR 577
Re William Felton Co Pty Ltd (1998) 28 ACSR 228

DECISION: Refer to para 30

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUNFORD J
Thursday, 5 OCTOBER 2000
12528/99 KIEN NAM QUACH v HUNTOF PTY LIMITED & anor
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by way of stated case pursuant to Part 5 of the Justices Act1902, as it stood prior to the Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeals) Act 1998, from the determination of Mrs G Madgwick LCM in the Local Court at the Downing Centre, Sydney on 3 December 1998, in which she ordered that paragraph 4 of the Amended Notice of Grounds of Defence in an action brought by the plaintiff, Kien Nam Quach against the defendants, Huntof Pty Limited and Andrew Weston, be struck out on the ground that such paragraph disclosed no reasonable defence to the action. 2 By his Statement of Claim the plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of a motor vehicle which he was driving on 11 December 1996 when as a result of a vehicle owned by the first defendant and being negligently driven by the second defendant, collided with a third vehicle, the impact of which caused the third vehicle to come into collision with and damage the plaintiff's vehicle. It was further alleged that as a consequence the plaintiff suffered loss and damage particularised as being the cost of renting an alternative vehicle from Nationwide Self Drive Pty Ltd ("Nationwide") whilst the plaintiff's vehicle was being repaired and assessed, and particulars were given specifying the claim as $3,635.30, together with interest and…

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 Quach v Huntof Pty Limited 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: [2000] NSWSC 932
Decision Date: 5 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Quach and Huntof Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Quach, was seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Huntof Pty Limited, was the hirer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's contract with the plaintiff constituted champerty, which would preclude the plaintiff from recovering damages from the negligent driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's contract with the plaintiff was champertous in nature, and if so, whether such a contract was enforceable under Australian law. The court had to consider the legal principles surrounding champerty and maintenance, and whether they applied to the circumstances of this case.

The court found that the defendant's contract with the plaintiff was indeed champertous, as it involved the defendant paying the plaintiff's legal costs in exchange for a portion of any damages recovered from the negligent driver. However, the court held that such agreements were not unenforceable per se, but rather required careful scrutiny to ensure that they did not contravene public policy. The court found that the defendant's contract with the plaintiff did not contravene public policy, and therefore was enforceable. However, the court also held that the existence of such a contract did not preclude the plaintiff from recovering damages from the negligent driver.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the negligent driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, despite the existence of the champertous agreement with the defendant. The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the enforcement of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, as this was not the primary issue in dispute.

Orders