Semco Developments Pty Ltd v Graham - [2005] VSCA 268

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 3774 of 2004

SEMCO DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD. & ANOR	Appellants
v.
PETER JOHN GRAHAM	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV, EAMES and ASHLEY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 November 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 268	First Revision: 22 November 2005

---

Practice and procedure – Costs – County Court – Award of damages not exceeding one-half of jurisdiction in Magistrates’ Court – Discretion exercised to allow costs on County Court scale – Exercise of discretion – Refusal to award costs to successful defendant for whom unsuccessful defendant was alter ego – County Court Rules; R63A.24.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr M.A. Robins	Wisewoulds
For the Respondent	Mr G.D. Bloch	Rockman & Rockman

CHERNOV, J.A.:

I ask that Eames, J.A deliver the first judgment in this matter.

EAMES, J.A:

This is an appeal against an order with respect to costs made by a judge in the County Court on 9 September 2004. Unlike the situation of an appeal as to costs from a judge of the trial division, leave is not required for an appeal on costs from a judge of the County Court. This appeal provides further evidence why that anomaly ought be removed.

The proceedings brought by the respondent arose out of the sale of a house by auction in Toorak on 27 October 2001. The sale price was $2.302 million. The first appellant, being the vendor company, had as one of its two directors the second appellant. A special condition in the contract of sale provided that the purchaser was obliged to pay to the vendor any amount of GST payable by the vendor in respect of the sale. Unbeknown to the respondent the house had been subject to "substantial renovations", as that term was defined in the GST legislation. Those renovations were not apparent to intending purchasers because the period facade of the property had been retained and old and used material had been employed for the purpose of the renovations so as to give the appearance that the entire property was in its original condition. Thus, in due course the respondent, as purchaser, was called upon to pay to the first appellant, as vendor, the sum of $45,400 for GST, and did so under protest.

The respondent then brought proceedings claiming the sum which had been paid for GST as damages. He brought claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cwlth) alleging that conduct of the first appellant constituted misleading and deceptive conduct, misrepresentation as to price or, alternatively, unconscionable conduct. The respondent also brought a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The respondent claimed that the second appellant aided and abetted, counselled, procured or induced the contraventions under the Trade Practices Act perpetrated by the first appellant.

In addition to the claim with respect to GST, the respondent also claimed damages for breach of contract, on the basis that the property and chattels were not in the same…

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 Semco Developments Pty Ltd v Graham

Details

AGLC: Semco Developments Pty Ltd v Graham [2005] VSCA 268
Case: [2005] VSCA 268
Decision Date: 9 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Semco Developments Pty Ltd brought an action against Graham in the County Court, seeking to recover damages for breaches of contract. The case involved a complex web of financial transactions and legal relationships, with the plaintiff asserting that Graham had failed to meet his contractual obligations. The defendant, Graham, in turn, argued that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded and that he was not liable for the alleged breaches. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount of damages claimed and whether the defendant's counter-claims were valid.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the quantum of damages and the allocation of costs. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the plaintiff's damages should be assessed according to the County Court's jurisdiction or if they should be limited to an amount that could have been awarded in the Magistrates’ Court. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it should exercise its discretion to award costs on the County Court scale, despite the plaintiff's recovery not exceeding the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction, and whether costs should be awarded to the successful defendant who was deemed to be the alter ego of the unsuccessful defendant.

The court, after careful consideration, ruled that the plaintiff's damages were appropriately assessed according to the County Court's jurisdiction. The court exercised its discretion to award costs on the County Court scale, noting that the case's complexity and the importance of the issues warranted such an award. The court also held that it would not award costs to the successful defendant who was considered the alter ego of the unsuccessful defendant, as this would be inappropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff's costs be assessed on the County Court scale, while denying costs to the defendant deemed to be an alter ego.

Orders