Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd (No. 3) - [2023] NSWDC 624

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 624
Hearing dates: 30 October 2023 – 3 November 2023
Date of orders: 30 October 2023 – 3 November 2023
Decision date: 03 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See par [161].

Catchwords:
QUANTUM MERUIT – RESTITUTIONARY CLAIM for works done by plaintiff for defendant in connection with a rice crop which was found by the Court to belong to defendant and for other work done / materials provided for other work done by plaintiff for benefit of defendant.

Legislation Cited:
Nil.

Cases Cited:
Nil.

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff – Alan David Walsh
Defendant – KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff – Mr Gunning, M.
Defendant – Mr O’Connor, J.
Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Rural Law.
Defendant – Walsh & Blair Solicitors.

File Number(s): 2020/00107856
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Plaintiff’s quantum meruit claims

Item 1

HIS HONOUR: I am currently dealing with the plaintiff's claim for the costs of planting, tending, watering and maintaining of the Dalree rice crop. The first item claimed was for electricity in the sum of $46,859.16. Mercifully, the parties have agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to that amount.

Item 2

The next claim is for repairs to the electric motor on the bore water pump. The amount in issue is the sum of $2,307.50. There is no dispute that the bore motor was damaged by a lightning strike. There is no dispute that it was repaired at the cost of $2,307.50 on 7 November 2016 before the exchange of contracts for the sale of the property.
In my primary judgment I accepted that there was an oral agreement concerning the Dalree rice crop. Paragraph [48] of my primary reasons sets out the evidence which I quoted from Mr Ken Brain, a principal of the defendant. I pointed out that the conversation deposed to by Mr Brain amounted to an oral contract. The question I then asked myself was whether that conversation took place. I then canvassed the relevant evidence and this at [55]:

"Given that it was the original plan that Dalree would be sold to the Defendant so that the Brains could both plant and harvest the rice crop, it appears to me to be probable that Ken Brain had the conversation with the Plaintiff that I quoted in [48] above. I have also reached the conclusion that it is more probable than not, such that the Defendant has persuaded me that the question I asked at the end of [48] should be answered 'yes'. I have spent some considerable time setting out conflicting parts of the relevant evidence and, as ought be evident, I have had to approach the evidence of both the Plaintiff and Ken Brain with circumspection. However, on this particular issue I find the Defendant’s case to be more compelling, particularly bearing in mind the evidence relating to the representations to…

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 Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd (No. 3) 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: [2023] NSWDC 624
Decision Date: 03 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd involved a claim by the plaintiff, seeking restitution for work done for the defendant, which included labour and materials provided for the defendant's rice crop and other work. The court had to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim for quantum meruit, as well as the extent of the defendant's liability for the work and materials supplied. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue that the court addressed was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a restitutionary claim for the work done on the rice crop and other services provided to the defendant. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's work was in the nature of a bailment or if it constituted a supply of services for which the plaintiff could claim quantum meruit. Additionally, the court needed to determine the value of the work done and whether any of the work was of a kind that the defendant could have reasonably expected the plaintiff to perform.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a restitutionary claim for the work done on the rice crop, as well as other work and materials provided for the defendant's benefit. The court held that the plaintiff's work was not in the nature of a bailment but rather a supply of services for which quantum meruit was appropriate. The court assessed the value of the work done and determined that the defendant was liable for the reasonable value of the services provided. The court also found that some of the work done by the plaintiff was of a kind that the defendant could have reasonably expected the plaintiff to perform.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the work done on the rice crop and other services provided, in an amount determined by the court to be the reasonable value of the services provided. The court also ordered the defendant to pay interest on the amount owed to the plaintiff from the date the claim was lodged until the date of payment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par [161].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Walsh v KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 624
Hearing dates:	30 October 2023 – 3 November 2023
Date of orders:	30 October 2023 – 3 November 2023
Decision date:	03 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See par [161].
Catchwords:	QUANTUM MERUIT – RESTITUTIONARY CLAIM for works done by plaintiff for defendant in connection with a rice crop which was found by the Court to belong to defendant and for other work done / materials provided for other work done by plaintiff for benefit of defendant.
Legislation Cited:	Nil.
Cases Cited:	Nil.
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff – Alan David Walsh Defendant – KC & WL Brain Pty Ltd
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff – Mr Gunning, M. Defendant – Mr O’Connor, J. Solicitors: Plaintiff – Rural Law. Defendant – Walsh & Blair Solicitors.
File Number(s):	2020/00107856
Publication restriction:	Nil.