Rapid Roofing Pty Ltd & Ors v Natalise Pty Ltd (Trustee, St Ange Family Trust) & Ors

[2007] HCATrans 570

[2007] HCATrans 570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B21 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

RAPID ROOFING PTY LTD

First Applicant

ALLAN LEO ERNESTINE

Second Applicant

MARY-ALISE PARQUETTE ERNESTINE

Third Applicant

and

NATALISE PTY LTD (TRUSTEE ST ANGE FAMILY TRUST)

First Respondent

JOSE ST ANGE

Second Respondent

MICHELLE ST ANGE

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.43 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants and the respondents were partners in a failed roof tiling business. The venture included a contract of sale involving the purchase by the first respondent of a half interest in machinery owned by the first applicant and the shipment of that machinery to Australia.  The containers in which the machinery was shipped also included some non‑partnership chattels belonging to the applicants.  Once the containers arrived in Australia, the respondents paid port charges and took the contents into their possession.

Relations between the parties broke down, and the respondents terminated the contract in December 2001. The applicants then commenced proceedings against the respondents in the District Court of Queensland, including a claim for damages for conversion of the non-partnership chattels. The respondents resisted the applicants' claims and counterclaimed for breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), seeking remedies under ss 82 and 87 of that Act. On 8 September 2006, McLauchlan DCJ gave judgment for the applicants and dismissed the counterclaim.

On 23 March 2007, the Court of Appeal (Williams and Keane JJA and Atkinson J) allowed the respondents' appeal.  The leading judgment was given by Keane JA.  The Court of Appeal held that the claim for conversion should have been dismissed as the respondents were entitled to demand reimbursement of the port charges as a lawful condition upon their obligation to deliver the goods to the applicants, and because there was no sufficient evidential and legal foundation for the award of damages made by the trial judge.  Their Honours also reversed the trial judge's dismissal of the counterclaim, as the respondents had been induced to enter the contract by the misrepresentations of the applicants about the valuation of the machinery, the proper remedy for which was the avoidance of the contract.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  The matters the applicants wish to press largely concern disputes of fact or the application of settled principles.  Special leave is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave with costs.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.46 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED