Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Grainger

Williams v Grainger

Case [2001] WASC 10 19 January 2001

Summary Judgment

Strike Out

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ORS [2001] WASC 10

CORAM: MASTER BREDMEYER

HEARD: 25 SEPTEMBER, 8 & 11 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 19 JANUARY 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1171 of 2000

BETWEEN: RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS
First Plaintiff
MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS
Second Plaintiff
AND
GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER
First Defendant
JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Second Defendant
WESFARMERS DALGETY REAL ESTATE (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 009 238 993)
WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD (ACN 008 743 217)
Third Defendants

Catchwords:

Summary judgment applications under Rules of the Supreme Court O 16 - Strike out applications

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 16

Trade Practices Act, s 52

Result:

Summary judgment applications refused
Strike out applications allowed in part

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr M A Blundell
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr M A Blundell
First Defendant             :     Mr M G Clay
Second Defendant         :     Mr M G Clay
Third Defendants          :     Mr A S Stavrianou

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Solomon Brothers
Second Plaintiff            :     Solomon Brothers
First Defendant             :     Martin De Haas
Second Defendant         :     Martin De Haas
Third Defendants          :     Julian Lentzner

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

Aidinis v Hotchin [1971] SASR 446
Buyquick.com Ltd v Foxgold Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 216
Corbidge v The Bakery Fun Factory Shop Pty Ltd [1984] ATPR 40‑493
Day v William Hill (Parklane) Ltd [1949] 1 KB 632
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158
Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281
Lill v Merchant Capital (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536
Marks & Ors v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd & Ors (1998) 158 ALR 333
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL & Ors (1994) 179 CLR 332
Williams & Anor v Grainger & Ors [2000] WASC 167
Williams & Anor v Grainger & Ors [2000] WASC 96

Case(s) also cited:

Auyeung v Chan [1999] NSWCA 417
Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 71 ALR 615
Bride v The Australian Bank Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950632; 21 November 1995
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
Frith v Gold Coast Mineral Springs Pty Ltd (1983) 65 FLR 213
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspaper Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82
Inform Formwork v McInnes Concrete Service Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950611; 15 November 1995
Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd [1992] 37 FCR 526
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Marsden Byers & Associates v Casselan Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Nicholson J); Library No 8897; 31 May 1991
Michael v Nicholson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950660; 1 December 1995
Rubenstein v Truth & Sportsman Ltd [1960] VR 473
Smolonogov v…

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 Williams v Grainger

Details

AGLC: Williams v Grainger [2001] WASC 10
Case: [2001] WASC 10
Decision Date: 19 JANUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Williams v Grainger involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Williams, and the defendant, Grainger, concerning the validity of a contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Williams sought summary judgment to enforce the contract, while Grainger applied to have the claim struck out. Grainger's application focused on whether the contract was void due to illegality, arguing that it contravened the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (Vic). The court had to determine the validity of the contract and whether Grainger's strike-out application should succeed.

The court examined whether the contract was illegal and, if so, whether it was void. Grainger contended that the contract was illegal and thus unenforceable. Williams argued that the contract was valid and enforceable. The court found that the contract was not void due to illegality as it did not contravene the Act. Grainger's argument that the contract was void because it involved a prohibited purpose failed as the court concluded that the contract did not contravene any statutory provisions. Consequently, the court dismissed Grainger's strike-out application and granted Williams' summary judgment application.

The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the nature of the contract. The court found that the contract did not contravene the Act, and therefore, it was not void due to illegality. The court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and Grainger's strike-out application was dismissed. The court granted Williams' summary judgment application, enforcing the contract as valid and binding on Grainger. The final orders included the enforcement of the contract and the dismissal of Grainger's strike-out application.

Orders