Vision X-Ray Group Pty Limited v Alexander Associates Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1295

Vision X-Ray Group Pty Limited v Alexander Associates Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1295

Leave was granted for grounds 3, 5 and 7 because the alleged factual findings and legal errors were inextricably linked. The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate was entitled on the pleadings, evidence and submissions to find that the 2015 Agreement remained in force and was varied by the 2017 oral agreement;...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Civil General Division Judgment in Debt Proceedings / Supreme Court Appeal; Application for Leave on Mixed Law and Fact Grounds
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on grounds 3, 5 and 7; appeal dismissed; Local Court decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
['local Court Appeal on Questions of Law and Mixed Law and Fact' 'recruitment Consultancy Agreement' 'contract Variation' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'set Off' 'replacement Guarantee']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'appeals' 'debt Recovery'] ['local Court Appeal on Questions of Law and Mixed Law and Fact' 'recruitment Consultancy Agreement' 'contract Variation' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'set Off' 'replacement Guarantee']

Source-derived case record

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 Local Court Civil General Division Judgment in Debt Proceedings / Supreme Court Appeal; Application for Leave on Mixed Law and Fact Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted for grounds involving mixed questions of law and fact.' 'Whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the 2015 Agreement remained in force and was varied by the 2017 oral agreement.' "Whether Vision X-Ray was denied procedural fairness by the Magistrate's findings about the 2015 Agreement and its variation." 'Whether an agreement was reached on 24 August 2018 entitling Vision X-Ray to a free replacement or set-off for fees paid in respect of Ms Mitchell.' 'Whether the Magistrate gave adequate reasons concerning the alleged 24 August 2018 agreement and set-off.' 'Whether Mr Yang left Vision X-Ray within the six month guarantee period.' "Whether the Magistrate gave adequate reasons for finding that Mr Yang's employment concluded on 18 September 2018."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted for grounds 3, 5 and 7 because the alleged factual findings and legal errors were inextricably linked. The appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate was entitled on the pleadings, evidence and submissions to find that the 2015 Agreement remained in force and was varied by the 2017 oral agreement; Vision X-Ray had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and was not denied procedural fairness; the alleged free replacement or set-off agreement for Ms Mitchell was conditional on payment of outstanding invoices, which were not paid; the Magistrate gave adequate reasons; and Mr Yang did not leave within the guarantee period because he ceased working on 18 September 2018 after...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on grounds 3, 5 and 7; appeal dismissed; Local Court decision affirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted in relation to appeal grounds 3, 5 and 7.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The decision and judgment of Magistrate Barko dated 5 May 2020 is affirmed.' 'The summons filed 20 May 2020 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs on an ordinary basis."]