Ryan v Chianti Pty Ltd - [2010] WASC 147

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RYAN -v- CHIANTI PTY LTD [2010] WASC 147

CORAM: ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN

HEARD: 18 MAY 2010

DELIVERED : 25 JUNE 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 3150 of 2009

BETWEEN: THOMAS LINDSAY RYAN
First Plaintiff
THOMAS LINDSAY RYAN as Administrator of the Estate of JEAN LENDRUM RYAN
Second Plaintiff
AND
CHIANTI PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Limitation period - Disputed facts - A question which ought to be tried

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Consolidated with CIV 1592 of 2008

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr J N D'Angelo
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr J N D'Angelo
Defendant:     Ms R Cosentino

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Granich Partners
Second Plaintiff            :     Granich Partners
Defendant:     Gibson & Gibson

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

Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61-424
Chianti Pty Ltd v Leume Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 270
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Ingram v Mohren (1993) 10 WAR 497
Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia [2008] FCAFC 60
Willoughby v Clayton Utz [No 2] [2009] WASCA 29

ACTING MASTER CHAPMAN:

Application

The defendant by chamber summons filed on 18 February 2010 seeks leave to bring the application out of time and for judgment to be entered for the defendant pursuant to O 16 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA). The defendant contends that the cause of action pleaded has no prospects of success. There are three grounds for this submission:
(1)The action is statute‑barred.
(2)There are no facts established or pleaded to give rise to a cause of action.
(3)The subject matter is so closely connected with other proceedings in this court it is unreasonable it is not litigated as a counterclaim in those proceedings.
In the alternative the defendant seeks an order that this matter be consolidated with CIV 1592 of 2008.

Background

The defendant is the trustee of Riverbends Trust. The Riverbends Trust balance sheet as at 30 June 1999 shows under the heading 'Current Liabilities' Thomas Ryan $423,684, JL Ryan $168,871. That balance sheet also shows the same entries for the previous year.
In his affidavit sworn on 30 March 2010 Mr Thomas Lindsay Ryan (Thomas) deposes as follows:
12On 2 April 2004 Pascoe confirms that the Riverbends Trust owes me 'the $600,000' and that the books are incorrect in showing it as owing to Stephen, the director of the Defendant. A copy of Pascoe's letter dated 2 April 2004 is attached marked 'TLR 6'.
13Lyons instructed Ord Group Pty Ltd ('Ord') to prepare a report of the accounts which report was forwarded to me on 19 April 2004. A copy of the Ord report is attached marked 'TLR 7'.
13At paragraph headed 'Riverbends Trust' on page 2 of the Ord report and at Appendix E and F of the Ord report, Ord confirms that as at 30 June 1999…

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 Ryan v Chianti 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: [2010] WASC 147
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v Chianti Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving a dispute over a limitation period in relation to a claim for damages. The plaintiff, Ryan, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Chianti Pty Ltd, for breach of contract and negligence. The defendant argued that the claim was statute-barred as it was filed outside the limitation period and disputed the existence of certain facts that would trigger the commencement of the limitation period.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were any genuine disputes as to the material facts that precluded the defendant from being entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court had to determine whether the undisputed facts established that the claim was time-barred and if there were any genuine factual disputes that required a trial. The court also needed to consider the appropriate test for summary judgment in light of the disputed facts and whether the dispute related to a matter that ought to be tried.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment as there were genuine disputes as to material facts that precluded the entry of judgment as a matter of law. The defendant's contention that the claim was statute-barred was based on certain facts which Ryan disputed. The court found that the existence of these facts was genuinely in dispute and therefore the defendant could not be said to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court further held that a question which ought to be tried existed, and thus, the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was properly dismissed. The court ordered that the matter proceed to trial to determine the disputed facts and whether the claim was statute-barred.

Orders