Legal Research
Cases
Timelio Pty Ltd v Petris

Timelio Pty Ltd v Petris

Case [2024] VSCA 17 29 February 2024

Appeal

Stay of Proceedings

Issue Estoppel

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0122

TIMELIO PTY LTD (ACN 169 389 771)	Applicant
v
ANDREW PETRIS	First Respondent
AND
CHARLOTTE PETRIS	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, LYONS JJA and J FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 February 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 17
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Petris v Timelio Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of Victoria, Matthews J, 25 October 2023)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal against summary judgment – Whether applicant’s defence has a real prospect of success – Whether primary judge erred in construction of convertible note deed – Leave to appeal refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Primary judge refused to grant a stay of execution on summary judgment – Where applicant has a counterclaim against the respondents – Parry v State Bank of Victoria [1989] WAR 240, considered – Leave to appeal refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to raise new arguments not raised before primary judge – New arguments on appeal only allowed in the interests of justice, a test which can only be satisfied in exceptional circumstances – Application also to adduce fresh evidence not before primary judge – Where no explanation for failure to adduce evidence before primary judge – Application refused.

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr J D Catlin
Respondent/s:		Mr L E P Magowan
Solicitors
Applicants:	Partners Legal Solutions
Respondent/s:	FSC Law

BEACH JA
LYONS JA
J FORREST AJA:

The plaintiffs (who are the respondents in this application) made claims against the defendant (‘Timelio’, the applicant in this application) for amounts alleged to be owing under two convertible note deeds dated 1 March 2022 (the ‘CN Deeds’) and a settlement deed dated 14 July 2022 (the ‘Settlement Deed’). In addition to defending these claims on the basis that no amounts were owing, Timelio counterclaimed against the respondents seeking damages for breaches of contract, misrepresentation and breach of their duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’).

The respondents applied for summary judgment in respect of their claims and, on 25 October 2023, a judge in the trial division granted that application in part by ordering that:
(a)Timelio pay each of the respondents:
(i)the sum of $22,000 with interest of $1,609.32 in respect of each respondent’s long service leave entitlements which were the subject of the Settlement Deed (the ‘long service leave judgment’);
(ii)the sum of $110,194.52 with interest of $5,373.87 in respect of the CN Deeds (the ‘CN Deeds judgment’); and
(b)there be no stay of execution of these judgments notwithstanding the existence of a counterclaim.
Timelio now seeks leave to appeal and (if leave is granted) to appeal the orders granting the CN Deeds judgment (proposed grounds 1 to 5). Those grounds relate, for the most part, to the construction of the terms of the CN Deeds. Timelio contends that, by reason of these matters, the judge wrongly concluded that its defence to the respondents’ claims under the CN Deeds had no real prospect 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.

Continue reading Timelio Pty Ltd v Petris

Details

AGLC: Timelio Pty Ltd v Petris [2024] VSCA 17
Case: [2024] VSCA 17
Decision Date: 29 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timelio Pty Ltd sought to appeal against a summary judgment granted in favour of Petris in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary dispute was related to a convertible note deed. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the applicant's defence had a real prospect of success and whether the primary judge had erred in the construction of the deed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the primary judge erred by refusing to grant a stay of execution on the summary judgment, given that Timelio had a counterclaim against Petris. The court also examined the application to raise new arguments and adduce fresh evidence not presented before the primary judge.

The court found that Timelio's defence did not have a real prospect of success and that the primary judge did not err in their construction of the convertible note deed. The court upheld the primary judge's decision to refuse a stay of execution on the summary judgment, reasoning that the interests of justice did not require such a stay, particularly given Timelio's counterclaim. The court further determined that new arguments and fresh evidence could only be considered on appeal if it was in the interests of justice, a test that could only be satisfied in exceptional circumstances. As Timelio had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the failure to present certain evidence before the primary judge, the application to adduce new evidence was refused.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The primary judgment was upheld, and the court's orders remained in effect.

Orders