Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [No 2] - [2012] WADC 85

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD -v- AMEDURI [No 2] [2012] WADC 85

CORAM: STONE DCJ

HEARD: 11-14, 17-21, 24 & 26 OCTOBER 2011

DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 294 of 2011

BETWEEN: TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
JOHN AMEDURI
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Construction and interpretation - Representation - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Unconscionable conduct - Evidence - Admissibility of documents - Scope and effect of s 1305 of the Corporations Act - Witness - Credibility - Indemnity from prosecution

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 9, s 286(1), s 1305(1), s 1305(2), s 1306(5), s 1306(6)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 51A, s 51A(2), s 51AC(2)(a), s 51AC(2)(b), s 51AC(4), s 51AC(7), s 51AC(8), 51AC(12), s 82(1)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 11, s 79C
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) s 9, s 9(2), s 10, s 79(1)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5

Result:

Claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P J Hannan
Defendant: Mr N D C Dillon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: De Vita & Dixon Lawyers
Defendant: McDonald Pynt

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

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 191 FLR 385
Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac (2008) 39 WAR 1
City & Suburban Group Pty Ltd v Gambetta Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 233
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1982-1983) 151 CLR 422
Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691
Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2001] FCA 1056
Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia [2002] FCAFC 197; (2002) 122 FCR 110
Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Vandenbergh [2010] WASC 10
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45

STONE DCJ:

Introduction

Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd (Tradesman), a company previously known as Concepts 2000 Ltd imported from overseas and supplied in Australia traffic related products such as cones and bollards. Mr Sergio Cotellessa was the sole director of Tradesman which traded as Tradesman Technologies.
Signs All Pty Ltd, a company previously known as Traffic Products Group Pty Ltd and later known as Allpack Signs Pty Ltd (Allpack), purchased traffic products from Tradesman. Mr Con Scrinis was the sole director of Allpack.
In mid-2008 Mr Cotellessa sold Tradesman for a share in a combined group of companies called The Traffic Group. The Traffic Group, which included Allpack, was involved in selling traffic products. A few months later Mr Cotellessa did not want to be a member of The Traffic Group and he wanted the return of Tradesman. Tradesman was subsequently transferred back to Mr Cotellessa on the understanding that Tradesman would only supply The Traffic Group and its associated companies with traffic products.
On or about 19 January 2009 Tradesman, Mr…

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 Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [No 2] 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: [2012] WADC 85
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd and Ameduri was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against Ameduri, the defendant, asserting claims for misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, and breach of contract, among others. The dispute primarily revolved around a construction project where Tradesman Technologies alleged that Ameduri had made misleading representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain documents and the scope and effect of s 1305 of the Corporations Act, as well as assessing the credibility of witnesses in relation to the indemnity from prosecution.

The court faced several key legal issues. These included whether the representations made by Ameduri were misleading or deceptive, whether Ameduri's conduct was unconscionable, and the admissibility of specific documents under s 1305 of the Corporations Act. The court also had to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, particularly in relation to the indemnity from prosecution. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had breached the terms of the contract, while the defendant contended that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded and that the indemnity from prosecution was applicable.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties. It found that Ameduri had indeed made misleading representations and engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court held that the documents in question were admissible under s 1305 of the Corporations Act, and that the indemnity from prosecution did not absolve Ameduri of liability. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's witnesses were credible and that the defendant's witnesses lacked credibility in certain aspects. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd, on all counts.

In summary, the court's decision was in favour of Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd. It found that Ameduri had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct, and that the indemnity from prosecution did not apply. The court granted relief to the plaintiff on all claims, including damages for breach of contract and other specified remedies. The judgment also included specific directions regarding the admissibility of documents and the credibility of witnesses.

Orders