Williams & Williams v Cadillac Transport Repairs - [2004] NTSC 57

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2004 List] Williams & Williams v Cadillac Transport Repairs Propriety Ltd [2004] NTSC 57

PARTIES: WILLIAMS, Brian and WILLIAMS, Christine

CADILLAC TRANSPORT REPAIRS PROPRIETY LIMITED

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20204328

DELIVERED: 22 October 2004

HEARING DATES: 16 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT
Breach of contract – damages for breach – whether defendants’ benefited from contract – rescission.

CROSS-APPEAL
Whether Magistrate erred in law in reaching conclusion – whether evidence existed to support the ultimate conclusion – cross-appeal dismissed.

APPEAL
Pleadings – whether defence based on statutory or common law regime – whether Magistrate erred in not giving general law remedy of damages, restitution; rescission – whether common law damages has to be specifically pleaded for Magistrate to consider – appeal allowed.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 75A; Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act (NT), s 67; Local Court Act (NT), s 19; Local Court Rules (NT)

Wilson v Lowery (1993) 110 FLR 142 at 146; Nicolia v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1970) 45 ALJR 465 at 466; Konskier v B Goodman Limited [1928] 1 KB 421 at 427; Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 135 at 143; Philip Morris Incorporated and Another v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited (1981) 148 CLR 457 at 472, applied.
Young v Northern Territory Australia and Gutsche [2004] NTSC 16, considered.
Water Board v Moustakas (1987) 180 CLR 491, distinguished.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: T Young
Respondent: R Bruxner

Solicitors:
Appellant: Cassandra Tys
Respondent: Graham Cole

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: Mar0411
Number of pages: 51

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Williams & Williams v Cadillac Transport Repairs Propriety Ltd
[2004] NTSC 57
No. 20204328

BETWEEN:

BRIAN WILLIAMS and CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
Appellants

AND

CADILLAC TRANSPORT REPAIRS PROPRIETY LIMITED
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 22 October 2004)

[1] This is an appeal and cross-appeal against a decision of a Magistrate by which his Worship found for the defendants on the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid monies and found for the plaintiff on the defendants’ counterclaim for damages for breach of contract.
[2] The plaintiff carried on the business of mechanical repairs in Katherine. In October 2000 the defendants’ bus motor overheated and they took the bus to the plaintiff. The parties reached an oral agreement that the plaintiff would rebuild the motor for a fair and reasonable price. No time within which the work would be completed was discussed. There is no dispute that it was an implied term of the agreement that the plaintiff would exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of the work and that the materials used would be reasonably fit for the purpose intended.
[3] The principal of the plaintiff, Mr Rodger, has been an A grade diesel mechanic for about 30 years.…

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 Williams & Williams v Cadillac Transport Repairs 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: [2004] NTSC 57
Decision Date: 22/10/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams & Williams v Cadillac Transport Repairs is a case concerning a claim for unpaid monies and a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract. The appeal and cross-appeal were brought pursuant to s 19 of the Local Court Act which provides that a party to a proceeding may appeal to the Supreme Court only on a question of law. In the appeal, the defendants complained that the Magistrate erred in law in concluding that the plaintiff failed to carry out the work with due care and skill. In the cross-appeal, the plaintiff complained that the Magistrate erred in law in finding that the plaintiff, through the evidence of Mr Rodger, had admitted or accepted liability or had made a concession that it had failed to provide due care and skill in the performance of the contract. In the appeal, the court found that the Magistrate had made a significant error in reasoning but that the error did not amount to an error of law. The court found that the Magistrate’s ultimate conclusion that the plaintiff had breached the contract was supported by evidence. In the cross-appeal, the court found that the plaintiff’s complaint was not made out. In the appeal concerning the counterclaim, the court found that the Magistrate had erred in law in failing to give the defendants the general law remedy of damages for breach of contract or, alternatively, restitution. The court found that the Magistrate had been misled by the parties and had acted upon an incorrect view of the legal effect of pleadings. The court found that the defendants were entitled to judgment on the counterclaim in the amount of $12,885. The plaintiff’s cross-appeal was dismissed.

Orders