Chaouk t/as The Hungry Baker v Australian Shadola Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1108

Chaouk t/as The Hungry Baker v Australian Shadola Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1108

The appeal failed because the magistrate gave sufficient reasons for dismissing the cross claim, for finding that Mr Chaouk was the legal person behind The Hungry Baker and that a contract existed between Mr Chaouk and Australian Shadola, and for the judgment sum by reference to the accepted evidence and pleadings. Grounds concerning intention to create legal relations and the existence of the contract raised questions of mixed law and fact requiring leave, and no basis was identified for granting leave or impugning the magistrate's findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Local Court of New South Wales Under Ss 39 and 40 of the Local Court Act 2007 (nsw) / Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused in respect of grounds 5 and 6; appeal dismissed with respect to the balance of the grounds.
Legal Topics
['local Court Appeal' 'question of Law' 'question of Mixed Law and Fact' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'formation of Contract' 'breach of Contract Damages' 'cross Claim' 'calderbank Offer']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['local Court Appeal' 'question of Law' 'question of Mixed Law and Fact' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'formation of Contract' 'breach of Contract Damages' 'cross Claim' 'calderbank Offer']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Local Court of New South Wales Under Ss 39 and 40 of the Local Court Act 2007 (nsw) / Decision on Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the cross claim by C & Y Holdings.' 'Whether there was evidence and adequate reasoning for finding that references to The Hungry Baker were referrable to Mr Chaouk and the contract with Australian Shadola.' 'Whether invoices sent to The Hungry Baker supported the finding of a contract between Australian Shadola and Mr Chaouk.' 'Whether the finding of an intention to create legal relations and a contract between Australian Shadola and Mr Chaouk involved appealable error.' 'Whether the magistrate gave an adequate basis in law and reasons for the quantum awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the magistrate gave sufficient reasons for dismissing the cross claim, for finding that Mr Chaouk was the legal person behind The Hungry Baker and that a contract existed between Mr Chaouk and Australian Shadola, and for the judgment sum by reference to the accepted evidence and pleadings. Grounds concerning intention to create legal relations and the existence of the contract raised questions of mixed law and fact requiring leave, and no basis was identified for granting leave or impugning the magistrate's findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused in respect of grounds 5 and 6; appeal dismissed with respect to the balance of the grounds.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 5 and 6.' 'Dismiss the appeal with respect to the balance of the grounds.' "Subject to order 4, order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings." 'Direct that, if a party wishes to make an application for a costs order other than as set out above,...