Waco Kwikform Ltd v Q-CON Pty Ltd - [2009] WADC 45

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WACO KWIKFORM LTD -v- Q-CON PTY LTD [2009] WADC 45

CORAM: DAVIS DCJ

HEARD: 6 MARCH 2009

DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 18 of 2009

BETWEEN: WACO KWIKFORM LTD
Applicant
AND
Q-CON PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application to transfer matter from Magistrates Court to District Court

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 16, s 17 and s 39
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Rules 2005 r 41D
Rules of the Supreme Court O 20 r 2 and r 10

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J C Yeldon
Respondent: Mr G Taylor

Solicitors:

Applicant: Tottle Partners
Respondent: Taylor Linfoot & Holmes

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

Baldry v Jackson [1976] 2 NSWLR 415
Catlin v National Australia Bank Ltd [2004] WASC 135
Eshelby v Federated European Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 254
Freeman v McCabe [2008] WADC 125
Keene v Devine [1986] WAR 217
Servcorp (Australia) Pty Ltd v Abgarus Pty Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 281
Water Authority of Western Australia v AIL Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) (1992) 10 WAR 233 at 235

DAVIS DCJ: In 2006 the applicant supplied scaffolding equipment on hire to the respondent. The hire continued for some months, during which time invoices for the hire charges for that equipment were rendered by the applicant to the respondent, and the respondent paid those charges. Between February 2007 and December 2007 the applicant rendered further invoices for the hire of the scaffolding and these were not paid. At that time the outstanding invoices totalled $40,805.76
The applicant then decided to take action against the respondent to recover these outstanding hire charges and commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court, by filing a General Procedure Claim, on 24 January 2008. The respondent filed a response and notice of intention to defend. The applicant then filed a Statement of Claim General Procedure Form, with an attached statement of claim and the respondent filed a Statement of Defence General Procedure Form. As the parties were both legally represented these documents took the form of pleadings.
On 18 September 2008 the applicant's solicitors wrote and informed the respondent's solicitors that the amount of the claim, as at 18 September 2008, had increased to $175,138, which exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court. The increased amount claimed related to:
1.hire charges, from 18 May 2007 up to and including 22 August 2008 totalling $75,437.84;
2. a claim dated 10 September 2008 for losses for goods supplied under the hire agreement and said not to have been returned, totalling $74,979.00;
3.a claim for repairs for damage to some equipment that had been returned on 29 August 2008, totalling $4,722.00;
4.legal costs, as at 18 September 2008, of $15,000; and
5.interest costs of $5,000.
The hire charge costs for the period from 18 May 2007 to December 2007 as set out in a spreadsheet attached to the applicant's solicitors' letter of 18 September 2008, apart…

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 Waco Kwikform Ltd v Q-CON 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: [2009] WADC 45
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Waco Kwikform Ltd, sought to transfer a matter from the Magistrates Court to the District Court, arguing that the claim exceeded the Magistrates Court’s monetary jurisdiction. The respondent, Q-CON Pty Ltd, opposed the application, contending that the claim was properly within the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction. The dispute involved a claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract related to the supply of construction materials.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case, given the monetary value of the claim. The applicant argued that the claim exceeded the Magistrates Court’s jurisdictional limit, which is currently set at $750,000. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the claim fell well within the Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction and that the applicant had failed to establish grounds for transfer. The court needed to determine whether the claim’s monetary value justified transferring the matter to the District Court, which has a higher jurisdictional limit.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions concerning the monetary limits of the Magistrates Court and the District Court. It examined the particulars of the claim to ascertain the exact amount being sought by the applicant. After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the claim exceeded the Magistrates Court’s jurisdictional limit. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for transfer, finding that the claim was appropriately within the Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction. The court ordered that the matter remain in the Magistrates Court, with both parties to bear their own costs of the application.

Orders