Zafra Pty Ltd v Stevenson - [2023] WADC 89

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ZAFRA PTY LTD -v- STEVENSON [2023] WADC 89
CORAM:   REGISTRAR JEYAMOHAN
HEARD:   8 AUGUST 2023
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
PUBLISHED           :   15 SEPTEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3531 of 2019
BETWEEN:   ZAFRA PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
CANDICE MARGARET STEVENSON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Summary judgment - Leave to bring application for summary judgment out of time - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Judgment awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr P G McGowan
Defendant	:	Ms E Carlean

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Zafra Legal
Defendant	:	Not applicable

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

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184
Bynon v Atma Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for the Badjyn Investment Trust and the H & B Farm Trust [2017] WASC 30
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Gel Custodians Pty Ltd v Dewar [2014] WASC 177
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109
Stevenson v Zafra Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 181
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
Westpac Banking Corporation v Anderson [2017] WASC 106

REGISTRAR JEYAMOHAN:

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 8 August 2023 and edited from the transcript.]

Introduction

By chamber summons dated 24 February 2023, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment be entered against the defendant (Application) in the following terms:
1.The time for making this application be extended.
2.The plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for $91,627.82 and interest thereon at the rate of 3.5% from the dates pleaded in paragraph 14 of the statement of claim until judgment.
3.The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of this application and of the action, including reserved costs, to be taxed.

Overview

The background to the dispute is summarised at [4] ‑ [93] of the reasons for decision of the Court of Appeal in Stevenson v Zafra Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 181.
By way of overview:
1.The defendant was the group accountant for Atrum Coal NL (Atrum).
2.The defendant was, on 4 November 2015, sued in the Federal Court proceedings by Atrum and an associated company. She was the third of multiple respondents. The claims against the defendant included breach of contractual, fiduciary and statutory duties as an employee.
3.The defendant requested Mr Leslie of Wilson & Atkinson to act for her in respect of the Federal Court proceedings.
4.The defendant entered into a costs agreement with Wilson & Atkinson.
5.Wilson & Atkinson invoiced the defendant $118,097.13 for acting for her. There were seven invoices.
6.Wilson & Atkinson ceased to carry on business and Mr Leslie informed the defendant that this was to happen and invited the defendant to transfer her file to the plaintiff where he would continue to act for her.…

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 Zafra Pty Ltd v Stevenson

Details

AGLC: Zafra Pty Ltd v Stevenson [2023] WADC 89
Case: [2023] WADC 89
Decision Date: 15 SEPTEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zafra Pty Ltd sought summary judgment against Stevenson, with the case before the Federal Circuit Court. The dispute involved issues of contract law, specifically whether Stevenson had breached an agreement by failing to pay for services rendered by Zafra. The application for summary judgment was made out of time, requiring the court to determine whether the application could proceed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should grant leave for Zafra to bring its application for summary judgment, which was filed beyond the stipulated time. This hinged on whether Zafra had a compelling reason to seek such leave, considering the circumstances of the case. The court needed to balance the strict procedural rules on time limits with the principle of fairness and justice in individual cases.

The court found that the application was indeed out of time, but the circumstances warranted granting leave. Zafra had acted promptly upon discovering the default and had a strong case on the merits. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that rigid adherence to time limits could lead to unjust outcomes. Consequently, the court granted leave for Zafra to proceed with its application for summary judgment. The final orders of the court are pending, but the granting of leave is a significant step towards Zafra achieving a resolution.

Orders