Stylis v UMP Limited - [2006] NSWSC 951

CITATION: Stylis v UMP Limited [2006] NSWSC 951

HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 September 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

DECISION: (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) The cross claim is dismissed; (3) The decision of His Honour Magistrate Reiss dated 17 November 2005 is affirmed; (4) The summons filed 14 December 2005 is dismissed; (5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Appeal decision of Local Court Magistrate - unpaid instalments, liability to pay call

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - s 140
Local Courts Act 1982 (NSW) - ss 73, 75

CASES CITED: Allen v Kerr & Anor (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-354
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Bache & Co (London) Ltd v Banque Vernes et Commerciale de Paris SA [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep 437
Brick and Pipe Industries Limited v Occidential Life Nominees Pty Limited [1992] 2 VR 279
Carr v Neill [1999] NSWSC 1263
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Limited (1935) 53 CLR 643
Kerr v John Mottram Limited [1940] 1 Ch 657
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R L & D Investments Pty Ltd v Bisby (2002) 37 MVR 479
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588

PARTIES: Dr Stanley Chris Stylis - Plaintiff
United Medical Protection Limited ACN 077 283 884 - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15872/2005

COUNSEL: Mr G A Sirtes - Plaintiff
Mr R Marshall - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Swaab Attorneys - Plaintiff
Sally Nash & Co - Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 13143/2004

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Reiss LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 17 November 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

MONDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2006
15872/2005 - STANLEY CHRIS STYLIS v

UNITED MEDICAL PROTECTION LIMITED ACN 077 283 884

JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Local Court Magistrate
- unpaid instalments, liability to pay call)

1 HER HONOUR: There is both an appeal and a cross appeal. By summons filed 14 December 2005 the plaintiff Dr Stanley Stylis (Dr Stylis) seeks an order that the judgment of His Honour Reiss LCM dated 17 November 2005 be set aside and in lieu thereof orders that the plaintiff pay the defendant the sum of either $5,649 or $12,616.81 and that the statement of claim be dismissed.

2 By cross appeal filed 12 January 2006 the defendant United Medical Protection Limited (UMP) seeks firstly, an order that the cross appeal be allowed; secondly, an order that the judgment dated 17 November 2005 be set aside and in lieu thereof judgment for UMP in the amount of $52,815.38; thirdly, that Dr Stylis pay UMP interest up to judgment as claimed in paragraph 9(b) of the statement of claim; and fourthly,…

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 Stylis v UMP Limited

Details

AGLC: Stylis v UMP Limited [2006] NSWSC 951
Case: [2006] NSWSC 951
Decision Date: 18 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stylis v UMP Limited, the matter came before the court following a decision by a Local Court Magistrate that the plaintiff, Stylis, was liable to pay outstanding instalments and a call. The defendant, UMP Limited, argued that the Magistrate's decision was erroneous and sought to appeal the ruling. The core of the dispute involved the interpretation of a security agreement and the obligations of the parties under it.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate had correctly interpreted the security agreement, and whether the decision to hold Stylis liable for the outstanding instalments and call was supported by the evidence and the law. The defendant contended that the Magistrate had erred in law by not properly considering the terms of the security agreement and the effect of certain amendments.

The court examined the terms of the security agreement and the evidence presented. It found that the Magistrate had correctly interpreted the agreement and that the evidence supported the decision that Stylis was liable for the unpaid instalments and call. The court held that the security agreement was clear and unambiguous, and that the terms regarding the payment obligations were not altered by subsequent amendments. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Local Court Magistrate was upheld.

The court ordered that Stylis remain liable to pay the outstanding instalments and call, as determined by the Local Court Magistrate. The defendant's appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders