Tradesman Technologies v Ameduri - [2011] WADC 162

TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES -v- AMEDURI [2011] WADC 162

Last Update: 12/10/2011

TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES -v- AMEDURI [2011] WADC 162
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WADC 162
Case No:	CIV:294/2011	Heard:	29 AUGUST 2011
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	05/10/2011
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed in part
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES JOHN AMEDURI
Catchwords:	Practice Application for further and better particulars
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cellulose Products Pty Ltd v Truda (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 561 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Fieldturf Inc v Balsam Pacific Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 809 Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370 R v Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738 Western Australian Capital Investment Co v Federal Commission of Taxation (1988) ATC 4001

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES -v- AMEDURI [2011] WADC 162 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 29 AUGUST 2011 DELIVERED : 5 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 294 of 2011 BETWEEN : TRADESMAN TECHNOLOGIES

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN AMEDURI

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application for further and better particulars

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed in part

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr Hannon

Defendant : Mr N Dillon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : De Vita & Dixon Lawyers

Defendant : McDonald Pynt

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

Cellulose Products Pty Ltd v Truda (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 561
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Fieldturf Inc v Balsam Pacific Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 809
Goldsmith v Sandilands (2002) 190 ALR 370
R v Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738
Western Australian Capital Investment Co v Federal Commission of Taxation (1988) ATC 4001

(Page 3)

1 REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: Tradesmen Technologies Pty Ltd (Tradesmen) carried on business of importing and supplying traffic related products such as cones, bollards and similar products (Traffic Products). As it is pleaded at par 9, the defendant (Ameduri) worked for Signs All Pty Ltd (Signs All) at all material times after 21 September 2007. Tradesmen pleads that Ameduri was authorised by the sole director of Signs All to place orders on behalf of Signs All for the purchase of Traffic Products from Tradesmen. Tradesmen pleads at par 23 of the statement of claim that between July 2008 and April 2009 Tradesmen supplied Traffic Products to Signs All in response to orders placed by Signs All and Tradesmen rendered Signs All invoices for such supplies.

2 Tradesmen pleads that on or about 19 January 2009, a Restricted Supply Agreement was made between Tradesmen and Signs All. As a result of that agreement, Tradesmen supplied Traffic Products to Signs All. By April 2009, Tradesmen pleads Signs All owed approximately $129,354.60 to Tradesmen.

3 In April 2009 a Continuing Supply Agreement was made between the director of Tradesmen, Tradesmen, Mrs Ameduri and Signs All. The Continuing Supply Agreement provided that Signs All was to pay all…

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 Tradesman Technologies v Ameduri

Details

AGLC: Tradesman Technologies v Ameduri [2011] WADC 162
Case: [2011] WADC 162
Decision Date: 5 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Tradesman Technologies v Ameduri before the Federal Court of Australia involved a dispute between the applicant, Tradesman Technologies, and the respondent, Ameduri, regarding the adequacy of particulars provided in a statement of claim. The applicant sought further and better particulars to clarify certain aspects of the respondent's claims. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's request was justified and warranted under the relevant procedural rules.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the particulars provided in the statement of claim were sufficient for the respondent to adequately respond to the claims made by the applicant. The court had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and whether the respondent's claims were clear and precise enough to enable the applicant to prepare an appropriate defence. The court also had to weigh the need for clarity against the potential prejudice that might arise from granting the application for further and better particulars.

In allowing the application in part, the court found that some of the particulars provided in the statement of claim were insufficient. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for parties to provide clear and precise details in their pleadings. The court noted that while the respondent's claims were generally understandable, certain aspects required more detailed information to ensure a fair trial. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the requested particulars to the extent necessary for a fair response to the claims made by the respondent.

The final orders of the court allowed the applicant's application for further and better particulars in part, specifying the areas where additional information was required. The court provided a timeframe for the respondent to provide the requested particulars and outlined the consequences of non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed in part

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.