Thi v Quadwest Developments Pty Ltd - [2010] WADC 32

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: THI & ORS -v- QUADWEST DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD [2010] WADC 32

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 10 MARCH 2010

DELIVERED : 19 MARCH 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 3229 of 2008

BETWEEN: HUYNH HOUN THI
NGUYEN LOI VAN
TRAN TUYEN VAN
TRAN DAU THI
Plaintiffs (Appellants)
AND
QUADWEST DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Defendant (Respondent)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal from a registrar's refusal to grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs - issue estoppel

Legislation:

Commercial Arbitration Act 1985

Result:

Appeal allowed - Summary judgment granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs (Appellants) : Mr A J Prentice
Defendant (Respondent) : Mr S G Leslie

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs (Appellants) : Mossensons
Defendant (Respondent) : Talbot Olivier

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Blair & Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Curran (Adams' Will) (1939) 62 CLR 464
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Limited (1983) 154 CLR 87
Wyatt v MR & RC Smith Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 55

EATON DCJ: The plaintiffs, by writ of summons filed in this Court on 18 December 2008, claimed an amount of $86,290.38 said to be an amount due by the defendant to the plaintiffs by reason of a deed executed by the parties on 23 February 2007. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claim damages in the amount referred to.
The defendant entered an appearance on 22 January 2009.
The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim on 13 March 2009 asserting that the defendant, in breach of a deed dated 23 February 2007 made between the plaintiffs and the defendant had failed to pay the sum of $86,290.38. Again, the prayer for relief was for that amount or damages.
One week later, on 20 March 2009, the plaintiffs, by chamber summons, applied for summary judgment in the amount claimed with interest thereon. The application was listed for hearing on 16 November 2009 and heard on that day by Deputy Registrar Harman. He later reserved his decision.
On 14 December 2009 he delivered written reasons for dismissing the plaintiffs' application. On 23 December 2009 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that judgment.
In due course the appellants entered the appeal for hearing and the matter was listed before Deputy Registrar Hewitt on 2 February 2010. He adjourned the appeal for hearing before a judge on 10 March making certain directions as to the filing of submissions.
Part 2 Div 3 of the District Court Rules 2005 deals with appeals from registrars. Regulation 15 provides that a party dissatisfied with a registrar's decision may appeal to a judge. The appeal must be commenced within 10 days after the date of the decision by service of a notice setting out the particulars of the decision to which the appeal relates and the final orders sought. Such an appeal is to be by way of a new hearing of the matter that was before the registrar.
By their notice 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thi v Quadwest Developments Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] WADC 32
Decision Date: 19 MARCH 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thi v Quadwest Developments Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with an appeal against a registrar's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Thi, sought damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation against Quadwest Developments, the defendant. Thi's claims arose from a failed commercial property transaction, where Quadwest was alleged to have breached contractual obligations and made misleading statements. The central issue for the court was whether the registrar erred in dismissing Thi's application for summary judgment, effectively ruling that there were genuine issues to be tried.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of issue estoppel and the criteria for granting summary judgment. Issue estoppel, or collateral estoppel, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been determined in a prior proceeding. The court needed to determine whether the prior determinations in related proceedings were conclusive on the issues raised in Thi's application for summary judgment. Additionally, the court was required to assess whether there were any triable issues in light of the evidence presented by both parties, and whether the plaintiff had met the burden of proving the absence of any such issues.

The court found that the registrar had indeed erred in dismissing the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The court held that the findings in the earlier related proceedings were binding on Quadwest, effectively precluding them from denying the material facts alleged by Thi. The court concluded that the prior determinations effectively resolved the key factual disputes, and therefore, there were no genuine issues to be tried. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the registrar's decision, and remitted the matter for the grant of summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders