Raisha Projects Pty Ltd v Fletcher & Anor [2008] ACTSC 85 (19 August 2008)

Last Updated: 15 September 2008

RAISHA PROJECTS PTY LTD v KEVIN FLETCHER & ANOR

[2008] ACTSC 85 (19 August 2008)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

No. SCA 45 of 2008

Judge: Higgins CJ

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 19 August 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SCA 45 of 2008

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: RAISHA PROJECTS PTY LTD

Appellant

AND: KEVIN FLETCHER and

JON RUMBLE

Respondents

ORDER

Judge: Higgins CJ

Date: 19 August 2008

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be refused.

1. The claim involved four invoices. The claimants, Messrs Fletcher and Rumble, were bricklayers. They had apparently done certain work for the applicant, represented by Mr Iyengar. The first one was for $450. The invoice was placed before his Honour. It claimed 10 hours work at $45 per hour. I note that there was no actual dispute concerning the invoice. The claimants said that the applicant merely told them that he was unable then to pay them.

2. The second was an invoice for $10,167.50 of which $5000 had been paid, leaving a balance of $5,167.50. Again, Messrs Fletcher and Rumble gave evidence that Mr Iyengar did not dispute the actual amount outstanding but said he could not then pay.

3. There was another invoice for $180 for work done at Gordon on 7 August 2007, completing a job that had been done.

4. The fourth invoice of $360 was for further work done at a site in Gilmore. Now, Mr Iyengar claimed before his Honour that the invoices were factually incorrect and the rates excessive, but there was no cross claim for anything else that might have been set off against them.

5. It seems that Mr Iyengar was under a misapprehension that Messrs Fletcher and Rumble should have charged him GST, and they did not do so. That was, as his Honour said, quite irrelevant. Mr Iyengar seems to have thought that they ought to have claimed it, so he could get a credit for $4000 over the year when he paid for other work which amounted to about $41,000.

6. As a matter of law that claim was, of course, quite baseless. Whether in fact there was an agreement by Messrs Fletcher and Rumble to register for GST was put in issue and Mr Iyengar claimed that they should have registered for GST, but, as I say, whether there was any such agreement was a factual issue which his Honour had to determine.

7. Mr Iyengar further claimed that Messrs Fletcher and Rumble should not have carried out the work to the extent they did without first checking whether the funding level had been reached. The claimants said that the work they did was approved by the foreman, which would of course, as a matter of law, be sufficient authority to carry out the work on behalf of the applicant company.

8. The evidence of Mr Iyengar did not raise anything, other than that he was not admitting that the work was done. Mr Iyengar submitted that the claim should have been compromised rather than allowed in as fully as was claimed. His Honour accepted the evidence of Messrs Fletcher and Rumble that the work invoiced had been done and had been charged out at the usual rate.

9. The claim that the GST was to be charged, his Honour felt, was unsustainable as a legal requirement, and, as I have indicated, his Honour is right in that respect.

10. As a matter of fact his Honour rejected that there had been any agreement that GST would be charged. Nor was, in his Honour’s view, leaving blank the GST box in the invoices in any way likely to mislead anyone who would read the invoice.

11. The only objection Mr Iyengar, on behalf of Raisha Projects, could raise was on a question of fact. His Honour accepted the evidence of Messrs Fletcher and Rumble and was entitled to do so, and, as I have indicated on several previous occasions, one can not obtain leave to appeal simply on a question of fact.

12. There are no grounds in my reading of the transcript to suggest any error of law or any unfairness in procedure. Indeed, I note that Mr Iyengar, on behalf of the company, was offered an opportunity by his Honour, had he wished to accept it, to have an adjournment to obtain further evidence, but declined to do so.

13. There are therefore no grounds upon which leave could or should be granted, and the application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.

Associate:

Date: 19 August 2008

Counsel for the appellant: Litigant in person

Solicitor for the appellant: Litigant in person

Counsel for the defendant: No appearance

Solicitor for the defendant: No appearance

Date of hearing: 19 August 2008

Date of judgment: 19 August 2008