Legal Research
Cases
Roude v Helwani

Roude v Helwani

Case [2020] NSWSC 123 26 February 2020

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWSC 123
Hearing dates: 5 September 2019
Date of orders: 26 February 2020
Decision date: 26 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Magistrate Atkinson’s decision dated 9 November 2018 is affirmed.

(3) The amended summons dated 5 September 2019 is dismissed.
(4) The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.
Catchwords: APPEAL – Local Court Act s 39 – Defendant carried out plumbing and electrical works on plaintiffs’ property under oral contract – Defendant successful in Local Court claim in quantum meruit – Whether there was no evidence of the fair and reasonable cost of the works – Where the builder’s invoices were the only evidence of the cost of the works – Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s 3
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39(1), 40(1), 41
Cases Cited: Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472; (1986) 24 A Crim R 304
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 32; (1990) 94 ALR 11
Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126; (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126
Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430; (1997) 25 MVR 373
BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1982] 1 All ER 925; [1979] 1 WLR 783
Bradley v Matloob [2015] NSWCA 239; (2015) MVR 194
Brenner v First Artists’ Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221
Carlson v King (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 65
Council of the City of Sydney v Woodward [2000] NSWCA 201
Franklin v Ubaldi Foods Pty Ltd [2005] VSCA 317
Horley v Sector 7G Architecture Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWSC 827
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] ALR 367
Jung v Son [1998] NSWCA 120
Maksim (NSW) Pty Limited v Jantune Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1634
McPhee v S Bennett Ltd (1934) 8 WCR 372; (1934) 52 WN (NSW) 8
Mitchell v Cullingral Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 389
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; (1987) 69 ALR 577
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; (1986) 63 ALR 559
Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359; [1931] ALR 194
Sopov v Kane Constructions [2009] VSCA 216
Tagget v McLean Austquip Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1310
Wang v Yamamoto [2015] NSWSC 942
Texts Cited: K Mason, J W Carter and G J Tolhurst, Mason and Carter’s Restitution Law in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 3rd ed, 2016)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ali Roude (First Plaintiff)
Susan Roude (Second Plaintiff)
Adib Helwani (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Corsaro SC with D Allen (Plaintiffs)
QA Rares (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Darby Jones Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Garland Hawthorn Brahe (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/295301
Publication restriction:

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.

Continue reading Roude v Helwani

Details

AGLC: Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWSC 123
Case: [2020] NSWSC 123
Decision Date: 26 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roude v Helwani involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were property owners, and the defendant, who was a tradesperson that performed plumbing and electrical works on their property. The nature of the dispute was whether the defendant was entitled to compensation for the works he performed under an oral agreement. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales, and subsequently appealed to a higher court.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether there was sufficient evidence of the fair and reasonable cost of the works performed by the defendant. The plaintiffs argued that the only evidence of the cost of the works was the builder's invoices, which they claimed were not admissible as evidence. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the invoices were relevant and admissible, and that they were the only evidence of the cost of the works performed.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence of the fair and reasonable cost of the works, as the builder's invoices were relevant and admissible. The court held that the invoices provided a detailed breakdown of the work performed and the cost of materials used, and that this was sufficient evidence to determine the reasonable value of the works performed. The court also found that the defendant had established a prima facie case for recovery in quantum meruit, and that the appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the works performed, as determined by the evidence presented. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of the appeal.

Orders