Saul v Pool Data Systems - [2008] NSWSC 249

CITATION: Saul v Pool Data Systems [2008] NSWSC 249

HEARING DATE(S): 19 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
28 March 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) The order made by his Honour McCosker LCM dated 4 July 2007 striking out Mr Saul’s defence is set aside.
(4) The matter is remitted to the Local Court at Forster to be determined according to law.
(5) Costs are reserved pending receipt of the defendant’s written submissions within 14 days.

CATCHWORDS: LEAVE TO APPEAL - Local Court Magistrate - Strike out defence

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Local Courts Act 1982

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Erhard v Bhatia [2002] NSWCA 388
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

PARTIES: Edward Earle Saul (Plaintiff)
Pool Data Systems Pty Ltd (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13905/2007

COUNSEL: P Batley (Plaintiff)

SOLICITORS: Priest McCarron (Plaintiff)
Mark M Morris (Submitting Appeal - Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 257/2006

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : McCosker LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 4 July 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

FRIDAY, 28 MARCH 2008

13905/2007 - EDWARD EARLE SAUL v POOL DATA
SYSTEMS PTY LTD
JUDGMENT (Leave to appeal decision of Local Court

Magistrate – strike out defence)

1 HER HONOUR: By amended summons filed 19 March 2008, the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against an order made by his Honour McCosker LCM on 4 July 2007 in the Local Court at Forster in matter number 257/2006. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavits of Mathew Lindeman sworn 7 December 2007 and Sally Bryant affirmed 7 December 2007. The defendant filed a submitting appearance save as to costs.

2 The plaintiff in these proceedings is Edward Earle Saul (Mr Saul) who was the defendant in the Local Court proceedings. The defendant in these proceedings is Pool Data Systems Pty Ltd (Pool Data) who was the plaintiff in the Local Court proceedings. For convenience, in this judgment I shall refer to the parties by name.

Leave to appeal

3 Mr Saul appeals only part of the judgment and orders made by McCosker LCM on 4 July 2007 in the Local Court at Forster in matter number 257/2006. The part of the decision that Mr Saul appeals is the order that Mr Saul’s defence be struck out. McCosker LCM determined that Mr Saul failed to comply with a Court direction that at 11.00 am on 29 June 2007 in the Court registry at Forster, Mr Saul and Pool Data exchange statements of the evidence upon which they sought to rely in the proceedings in circumstances where: (a) At 11.00 am on 29 June 2007 Mr Saul sent to Pool Data by email a copy in portable document format (pdf) of the statement upon which he intended to rely in the proceedings.

4 Mr Saul says that the Magistrate made an error of…

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 Saul v Pool Data Systems

Details

AGLC: Saul v Pool Data Systems [2008] NSWSC 249
Case: [2008] NSWSC 249
Decision Date: 28 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saul v Pool Data Systems involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Saul, and the defendant, Pool Data Systems. The plaintiff is seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentation by the defendant. The case was initially heard in the Local Court of New South Wales, presided over by a Magistrate. The defendant, Pool Data Systems, sought to have the plaintiff's defence struck out on the basis that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's defence was sufficient to withstand a motion to strike out. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's defence did not disclose a reasonable cause of action because it was vague and did not provide sufficient details to counter the claims made by the defendant. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the defence was sufficient and contained all necessary details to allow the case to proceed to trial.

The court considered the arguments of both parties and the relevant legal principles. The court noted that the plaintiff's defence, while not perfect, did contain sufficient details to enable the defendant to properly respond to the claims. The court held that the plaintiff's defence was not so vague or uncertain that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Consequently, the defendant's motion to strike out the defence was dismissed. The case will now proceed to trial, allowing both parties to present their evidence and arguments.

In conclusion, the court determined that the plaintiff's defence was adequate enough to withstand a motion to strike out. The case will proceed to trial, and the parties will have the opportunity to present their respective cases. This decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient details in a defence to ensure that a case can progress to trial.

Orders