Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [No 2] - [2013] WASCA 252

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD -v- AMEDURI [No 2] [2013] WASCA 252

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
PULLIN JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 5 AUGUST 2013

DELIVERED : 29 OCTOBER 2013

FILE NO/S: CACV 64 of 2012

BETWEEN: TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
JOHN AMEDURI
Respondent

FILE NO/S :CACV 65 of 2012

BETWEEN :SERGIO COTELLESSA
Appellant
AND
JOHN AMEDURI
First Respondent
KAREN AMEDURI
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No              :  CACV 64 of 2012
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :STONE DCJ
Citation  :TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD -v- AMEDURI [No 2] [2012] WADC 85
File No  :CIV 294 of 2011
For File No              :  CACV 65 of 2012
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :STONE DCJ
Citation  :AMEDURI -v- COTELLESSA [2012] WADC 86
File No  :CIV 3751 of 2009

Catchwords:

Appeal - Contract - Whether loan agreement conditional - Turns on own facts

Appeal - Form of grounds of appeal pursuant to Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 32(4)

Appeal - Principles governing an appeal challenging a finding of fact following the resolution of disputed testimony

Appeal - Whether misrepresentations made - Whether misrepresentations relied upon - Whether loss suffered - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 10, s 77, s 79
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 32(4)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 82, s 87

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

CACV 64 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P J Hannan
Respondent: Mr N D C Dillon

Solicitors:

Appellant: De Vita & Dixon Lawyers
Respondent: Andrew Foster (Barrister & Solicitor)

CACV 65 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr P J Hannan
First Respondent           :     Mr N D C Dillon
Second Respondent      :     Mr N D C Dillon

Solicitors:

Appellant:     De Vita & Dixon Lawyers
First Respondent           :     Andrew Foster (Barrister & Solicitor)
Second Respondent      :     Andrew Foster (Barrister & Solicitor)

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

Ameduri v Cotellessa [2012] WADC 86
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena [2006] HCA 1; (2006) 224 ALR 1
Cush v Dylan [2011] HCA 30; (2011) 243 CLR 298
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 32; (2010) 241 CLR 390
State Rail Authority (NSW) v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; (1999) 160 ALR 588
Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [No 2] [2012] WADC 85
Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531

REASONS OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against two judgments of a District Court judge in two actions which were tried at the one hearing. One judgment was entered in…

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: [2013] WASCA 252
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [No 2] involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Ameduri, concerning the terms and conditions of a loan agreement. The plaintiff, a company involved in the technology sector, alleged that the defendant had breached the terms of the loan agreement by making misrepresentations that induced the plaintiff to enter into the agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the primary judge had previously ruled in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed against this decision, seeking a review of the primary judge's findings on the existence of the loan agreement's conditions, the reliance on any misrepresentations made, and the extent of any loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the alleged misrepresentations.

The legal issues before the court on appeal included whether the loan agreement was conditional and hinged on the plaintiff's own facts, as well as the principles governing an appeal challenging findings of fact following the resolution of disputed testimony. The court was also required to determine whether any misrepresentations were made by the defendant, whether these misrepresentations were relied upon by the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff suffered any loss as a result of the alleged misrepresentations. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles and the evidence presented in the case.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented and the findings made by the primary judge. It considered the nature of the loan agreement and whether it was conditional, as well as the credibility of the parties' testimonies. The court found that the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the appeal did not succeed in establishing that the primary judge had erred in fact. The court also determined that the appeal did not demonstrate a clear error of law or a miscarriage of justice, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the primary judge's findings on the existence of the loan agreement's conditions, the reliance on any misrepresentations made, and the extent of any loss suffered by the plaintiff were correct.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the appeal. The court confirmed the findings of the primary judge and upheld the decision in favour of the defendant.

Orders