TREADGOLD -v- NORFOLK RIDGE PTY LTD [2007] WADC 193

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 193
Case No:	CIV:545/2007	Heard:	29 OCTOBER 2007
Coram:	O'BRIEN DCJ	Delivered:	5/11/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY ASHBOURNE TREADGOLD NORFOLK RIDGE PTY LTD (ACN 081 502 650)
Catchwords:	Appeal against Registrar's decision granting summary judgment to plaintiff Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971
Case References:	Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Lindon v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251 Wedge v Service Finance Corp Ltd [2004] WASCA 54

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : TREADGOLD -v- NORFOLK RIDGE PTY LTD [2007] WADC 193 CORAM : O'BRIEN DCJ HEARD : 29 OCTOBER 2007 DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 545 of 2007 BETWEEN : ANTHONY ASHBOURNE TREADGOLD

Plaintiff

AND

NORFOLK RIDGE PTY LTD (ACN 081 502 650)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Appeal against Registrar's decision granting summary judgment to plaintiff - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr C P Stokes

Defendant : Mr P J Hannan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Chris Stokes & Associates

Defendant : Arns & Associates

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

Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Lindon v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (1996) 136 ALR 251
Wedge v Service Finance Corp Ltd [2004] WASCA 54

(Page 3)

1 O'BRIEN DCJ: This is an appeal against the decision of Registrar Kingsley made on 22 August 2007 granting summary judgment for the plaintiff for part of his claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim

2 On 23 March 2007 the plaintiff commenced proceedings by the issue of a writ of summons with an endorsed statement of claim.

3 The plaintiff's claim is that on 30 June 2005 he entered into a contract of employment with the defendant whereby he would be employed by the defendant from 1 July 2005.

4 The contract was in writing under the hand of the defendant's company secretary, Rhonda Joy McCarroll, and signed by the plaintiff ("the letter").

5 The terms of the plaintiff's employment set out in the letter include that the defendant would pay the plaintiff a base salary of $84,000 per annum, monthly in arrears, with four weeks annual leave per annum.

6 The plaintiff claims that he worked for the defendant from 1 July 2005 to 20 January 2006 and was therefore entitled to be paid salary plus holiday pay and superannuation particularised as totalling $55,097.

7 The plaintiff has since abandoned his claim…

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 Treadgold v Norfolk Ridge 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: [2007] WADC 193
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Treadgold v Norfolk Ridge Pty Ltd is an appeal brought before the court by the defendant, Norfolk Ridge Pty Ltd, against a decision made by a Registrar granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, Treadgold. The dispute pertains to a contractual obligation where Treadgold sought damages for breach of contract by Norfolk Ridge. The case was initially heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the Registrar found in favour of Treadgold and awarded damages.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment was justified based on the facts presented. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Norfolk Ridge had a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim that could have been established through the evidence provided. The court also considered whether the decision to grant summary judgment was an appropriate exercise of the court's discretion under the relevant procedural rules.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the Registrar erred in granting summary judgment without considering the merits of Norfolk Ridge's defence. The court determined that Norfolk Ridge had raised a genuine issue of fact that warranted a trial, thus the decision to grant summary judgment was inappropriate. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the Registrar's decision. The case will now proceed to a trial to determine the merits of Treadgold's claim and Norfolk Ridge's defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.