WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ORS [2000] WASC 96

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 96
Case No:	CIV:1171/2000	Heard:	7 APRIL 2000
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	13/04/00
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed to proceed
PDF Version

Parties:	MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER WESFARMERS DALGETY REAL ESTATE (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 009 238 993) WESFARMERS DALGETY LTD (ACN 008 743 217)
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for summary judgment under O 16 Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court, O 16 r 1, O 59 r 9
Case References:	Lill v Merchant (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536 Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc & Anor [1999] WASC 259 Russell-Davison v Prosin & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980277; 22 May 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WILLIAMS & ANOR -v- GRAINGER & ORS [2000] WASC 96 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 7 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 13 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1171 of 2000 BETWEEN : MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS

First Plaintiff

RUTH EILEEN 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:

Practice and procedure - Application for summary judgment under O 16 - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 16 r 1, O 59 r 9

Result:

Application allowed to proceed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr M A R Blundell

Second Plaintiff : Mr M A R Blundell

First Defendant : Mr M G Clay

Second Defendant : Mr M G Clay

Third Defendants : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers

Second Plaintiff : Solomon Brothers

First Defendant : Martin de Haas

Second Defendant : Martin de Haas

Third Defendants : No appearance

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

Lill v Merchant (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536

Case(s) also cited:

Bristile Ltd v The Buddhist Society of Western Australia Inc & Anor [1999] WASC 259
Russell-Davison v Prosin & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980277; 22 May 1998

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application for summary judgment by the first and second defendants ("the defendants") under O 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The defendants would like the application to proceed and to be heard at a special appointment fixed for 9 May 2000, at which the defendants' application to strike out parts of the statement of claim, and other interlocutory applications, will be heard. The plaintiffs say that the application is flawed and should be dismissed because:

(1) it is out of time and leave to bring it out of time has not been sought;

(2) no proper prior consultation has taken place under…

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 [2000] WASC 96
Case: [2000] WASC 96
Decision Date: 13 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Grainger involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Williams, and the defendant, Grainger, concerning the validity of an agreement regarding the sale of a property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought summary judgment under O 16 of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules, arguing that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had a genuine defence to the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the agreement. The court had to determine if the defendant's defence raised sufficient factual or legal issues to warrant a full trial. The court considered whether the defence was capable of being resolved on the basis of the evidence and submissions presented, without the need for a trial.

The court found that the defence raised by the defendant did not present a real prospect of success. The evidence and submissions did not provide a sufficient basis for the defendant to challenge the enforceability of the agreement. The court concluded that the application for summary judgment should be allowed to proceed, as the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, paving the way for the enforcement of the agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed to proceed

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.