JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: SPEEDWORX PTY LTD -v- BUNBURY CAR CLUB (INC) & ORS [2005] WASC 16
CORAM: MASTER NEWNES
HEARD: 8 FEBRUARY 2005
DELIVERED : 25 FEBRUARY 2005
FILE NO/S: CIV 2347 of 2004
BETWEEN: SPEEDWORX PTY LTD (ACN 070 004 223)
Plaintiff
AND
BUNBURY CAR CLUB (INC)
First DefendantPETER CHARLES NEWMAN
PHILIP ALAN ROSE
MARGARET ANN PADMORE
NEIL CRAM
MAXWELL JAMES DUNSTAN
BRIAN MOYLE
HARRY WILLIAM BISHOP
BRIAN LEE
JENNIFER KAY LOWE
Second Defendants
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application to strike out claim - Incorporated association - Whether committee members liable for inducing association to breach contract with plaintiff - Security for costs - Quantum - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA)
Result:
Claim against second defendants struck out
Order for security for costs of first defendant
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr G M Jordan
First Defendant : Mr M J Feutrill
First to Third and Fifth to
Ninth-named Second Defendants : Mr M J Feutrill
Fourth-named Second Defendant : Mr P E Harris
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Michael Whyte & Co
First Defendant : Max Owens & Co
First to Third and Fifth to
Ninth-named Second Defendants : Max Owens & Co
Fourth-named Second Defendant : Max Owens & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Biscayne Partners Pty Ltd v Valance Corp Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 874
Dalgety Australia Ltd v Rubin; unreported, SCt of WA, Library No 5485, 24 August 1984
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473
Hospital Contributions Fund of Australia v Hunt (1983) 44 ALR 365
O'Brien v Dawson (1942) 66 CLR 18
Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd (2000) 177 ALR 231
Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497
Short v City Bank of Sydney (1912) 15 CLR 148
Tsaprazis v Goldcrest Properties Pty Ltd (2000) 18 ACLC 285
Case(s) also cited:
Ex-Christmas Islanders Association (2002) Inc and Department of Transport and Regional Development 70 ALD 151
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd & Ors v The State of Western Australia & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6414; 25 August 1986
MASTER NEWNES: I have before me three applications in this matter. The first defendant has applied for security for costs. The second defendants (apart from Mr Cram, who has agreed with the plaintiff to abide the result) have applied to strike out the claim against them as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, if that application is unsuccessful, for security for costs.
The first defendant is an incorporated association under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987 (WA). It is a non‑profit organisation and, as its name suggests, is involved in motor sport in Bunbury.
In the action the plaintiff alleges that from some time prior to 1987 the City of Bunbury has leased to the first defendant certain land on which a speedway track is constructed. The land concerned is Crown land. The plaintiff says that from 1999 it occupied the…
Continue reading Speedworx Pty Ltd v Bunbury Car Club (Inc)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Speedworx Pty Ltd v Bunbury Car Club (Inc) [2005] WASC 16
- Case
- [2005] WASC 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to resolve whether the committee members of the Bunbury Car Club (Inc) could be held personally liable for the club's alleged breach of contract, and if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate quantum of security for costs that the plaintiff should provide to cover potential costs if the defendant were to be successful in its application to strike out the claims against the committee members.
The court found that the committee members were not personally liable for the actions of the association, as they were acting in their capacity as representatives of the club and not in a personal capacity. Consequently, the claims against the committee members were struck out. Regarding the security for costs, the court determined that the plaintiff should provide a security of $10,000, taking into account the nature of the case, the risk of the plaintiff being unsuccessful, and the potential costs that might be awarded to the defendant if the application were successful. The court held that the plaintiff's ability to pay this amount did not unduly prejudice its capacity to fairly prosecute or defend the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.