Smith v Benson - [2010] QDC 189

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Smith v Benson [2010] QDC 189
PARTIES: CHRISTINA STORME SMITH
(Appellant)
V
REBECCA JANE BENSON
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: D8/2009
DIVISION: Appellate
PROCEEDING: Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: Emerald Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON: 22 April 2010 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT: Emerald
HEARING DATE: 22 April 2010
JUDGE: Irwin DCJ

ORDER: 1. Appeal against sentence allowed

2.

Sentence imposed at first instance varied by deleting the part of the order that the defendant be released after serving 1 month of the sentence and instead, order she be released forthwith
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –
APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR
INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant
pleaded guilty and was convicted of two summary offences
of obtaining a financial advantage, namely social security
payments, for herself from the Commonwealth knowing or
believing that she was not eligible to receive the financial
advantage – where the offending was a continuous course of
conduct, but there were two charges due to a change in the
offence provisions – where the charges arose out of the
appellant’s failure, during a period of 103 fortnights over
almost four years, whilst in receipt of a disability pension, to
declare her and her husband’s income – where the total
overpayment due to the appellant’s conduct was $28, 813 –
where the appellant was sentenced to twelve months

1-1

imprisonment, to be released after serving one month upon

entering into a recognisance in the sum of $2,000, 1
conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of two
years, and subject to probation for a period of 12 months –

where there was evidence that the appellant had been treated since 2003 for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and had been referred to a psychiatrist regarding this – where
there was psychological evidence that it was likely, if the
appellant were significantly depressed, her ability to attend

her Centrelink obligations would have been impeded – where 10
there was psychological evidence her “somewhat precarious
state of mental health” would be likely to be jeopardised if
she was sent to prison – whether the sentence imposed was
manifestly excessive
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth), s 21B, s 16A(2)(m)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth), s 135.2 (1)
Andersen v The Commonwealth Director of Public 20

Prosecutions, Appeal No 4060 of 2005, 23 May 2006, considered
Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121, considered

Groundwater v Arthur, Appeal No 21 of 2008, 7 March 2008, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied 30
Leach v R [2008] NSWCCA 73, cited
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665, applied

Parry v Mayfield Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd [2006] QDC 250, cited
R v Clark [2009] QCA 361, cited
R v Holdsworth, CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, 40
considered
R v Hurst [2005] QCA 25, considered
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255, cited

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 Smith v Benson

Details

AGLC: Smith v Benson [2010] QDC 189
Case: [2010] QDC 189
Decision Date: 22/04/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Smith, the plaintiff, and Benson, the defendant. The dispute centred on a breach of contract claim arising from a failed business transaction. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Smith alleged that Benson had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations under a written agreement to supply specific goods to Smith's business. Smith sought damages for the losses incurred due to the non-delivery of the goods.

The court was required to determine whether there was a binding contract between the parties and, if so, whether Benson breached the terms of the contract. Additionally, the court needed to assess the extent of Smith's damages, if any, resulting from Benson's alleged breach. The key legal issues involved the interpretation of the contract, the existence of any conditions precedent, and the quantification of damages.

The court examined the written agreement and found that it was clear and unambiguous in its terms. The court held that there was a binding contract between the parties and that Benson had indeed breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods. The court also noted that there were no conditions precedent that needed to be satisfied for the contract to be enforceable. Regarding damages, the court determined that Smith was entitled to compensation for the losses directly resulting from Benson's breach, including lost profits and additional expenses incurred in mitigating the breach.

The court ordered that Benson pay Smith damages in the amount of $50,000, representing the quantifiable losses suffered by Smith due to the breach of contract. The court also ordered that Benson pay Smith's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Smith v Benson [2010] QDC 189
PARTIES:	CHRISTINA STORME SMITH
(Appellant)
V REBECCA JANE BENSON
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D8/2009
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Emerald Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	22 April 2010 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Emerald
HEARING DATE:	22 April 2010
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ

ORDER:	1.	Appeal against sentence allowed
2.	Sentence imposed at first instance varied by deleting the part of the order that the defendant be released after serving 1 month of the sentence and instead, order she be released forthwith

entering into a recognisance in the sum of $2,000,	1
conditioned that she be of good behaviour for a period of two
years, and subject to probation for a period of 12 months –
where there was evidence that the appellant had been treated since 2003 for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and had been referred to a psychiatrist regarding this – where
there was psychological evidence that it was likely, if the
appellant were significantly depressed, her ability to attend
her Centrelink obligations would have been impeded – where	10
there was psychological evidence her “somewhat precarious state of mental health” would be likely to be jeopardised if she was sent to prison – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth), s 21B, s 16A(2)(m)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth), s 135.2 (1)
Andersen v The Commonwealth Director of Public	20
Prosecutions, Appeal No 4060 of 2005, 23 May 2006, considered
Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121, considered
Groundwater v Arthur, Appeal No 21 of 2008, 7 March 2008, considered
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, applied	30
Leach v R [2008] NSWCCA 73, cited
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665, applied
Parry v Mayfield Holdings (Qld) Pty Ltd [2006] QDC 250, cited
R v Clark [2009] QCA 361, cited
R v Holdsworth, CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993,	40
considered R v Hurst [2005] QCA 25, considered
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255, cited