R & A Cab Co Pty Ltd v Kotzman - [2008] VSCA 68

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 6904 of 2004

R & A CAB CO PTY LTD (ACN 080 885 114)
	v
LINDSAY KOTZMAN

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY and KELLAM JJA, and OSBORN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 May 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 68

---

Contract – Compromise of proceeding - Deed of settlement - Settlement sum largely paid - Whether respondent’s letter asserting an enforceable offsetting claim against balance of monies due to appellant a repudiation of contract – Respondent’s failure to pay balance, taking into account all circumstances, not repudiatory – Appeal against judgement reiterating master’s orders that proceeding be stayed as against respondent in substance dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr I W Upjohn	John Matthies & Co
For the Respondent	Mr P Ehrlich	Schetzer Brott & Appel

ASHLEY JA:

This appeal arises out of an attempt by the respondent, Lindsay Kotzman, (‘Kotzman’ or ‘the respondent’), to rely upon a deed of settlement (‘the deed’) entered into between himself and the appellant, R & A Cab Co Pty Ltd (‘Cab Co’ or ‘the appellant’) in compromise of a proceeding in which Cab Co was plaintiff and Kotzman was fourth defendant. The appellant contends that the attempt must fail because the contract embodied in the deed was repudiated by the respondent and such repudiation was accepted by it.

To understand the issues which have arisen, it is necessary to set out a deal of the history of the matter.

In March 2003, Cab Co entered into a contract to purchase land at Kilsyth South from Kathleen and Edgar Rutty (‘the vendors’). Under the contract, $1,000 was payable as a preliminary deposit, and – apparently subject to the right of the vendors to require in certain circumstances that $350,000 be paid not earlier than six months after the day of sale – the balance of the purchase price of $570,000 was payable by 23 January 2004.

Cab Co did not complete the purchase. The vendors then sold the land to Horizon Synergy Pty Ltd by contract dated 13 February 2004.

Some five months after the date for completion of the March 2003 contract, Cab Co tendered the balance of the purchase price. The tender was rejected.

Thereafter, by writ filed 7 July 2004, Cab Co sought relief against the vendors and Horizon; and, in a provisional way, against Kotzman. He is a solicitor who at relevant times, practising under the style ‘Property and Business Commercial Lawyers’, acted as the solicitor for Cab Co.

The proceeding. Aspects of the statement of claim and of the respondent’s defence

Cab Co pleaded, as against the vendors, that they had –

· Given notice requiring payment of $350,000 when they were not entitled to do so.

· Served notice of rescission, and rescinded the contract when they were not entitled to do so.

· Wrongfully refused to complete.

· Wrongfully refused tender of the balance.

Cab Co pleaded, in…

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 R & A Cab Co Pty Ltd v Kotzman 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: [2008] VSCA 68
Decision Date: 6 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R & A Cab Co Pty Ltd v Kotzman, the dispute centred around the enforcement of a settlement agreement between the two parties. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the settlement and the consequences of the respondent's failure to pay the remaining sum owed to the appellant. The central legal issue was whether the respondent's letter, which asserted an enforceable offsetting claim against the balance of monies due, constituted a repudiation of the contract. The court had to consider whether this assertion, coupled with the respondent's failure to pay the balance, was sufficiently repudiatory to warrant the appellant's termination of the agreement.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of contract law and the specific circumstances of the case. It found that while the respondent's assertion of an offsetting claim was not in itself a repudiation, the overall context, including the respondent's failure to pay the balance, needed to be evaluated. The court held that, taking into account all the circumstances, the respondent's actions did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the settlement agreement. The court further concluded that the appeal against the judgment, which reiterated the master's orders to stay the proceedings against the respondent, was in substance dismissed. This outcome affirmed the validity of the settlement agreement and the necessity for the appellant to pursue the remaining balance through the appropriate legal channels.

Orders