Paolo Bataglia and Anor v Samuel Edward Stratti and Ors [2003] NSWIRComm 141

Paolo Bataglia and Anor v Samuel Edward Stratti and Ors [2003] NSWIRComm 141

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proof that the contract or arrangement in question was unfair. The evidence in support of their claims was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions between affidavits, oral testimony and diaries, and could not be preferred over the respondents' version where there was conflict. The central allegations about the supply and delivery of equipment and the promises of work were not made out on the balance of probabilities. The applicants' documentary evidence was not reliable. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Paolo Bataglia; Second Applicant: Maria Luz Bataglia; First Respondent: Samuel Edward Stratti; Second Respondent: Troy Kenneth Stratti; Third Respondent: Detail Rock Tools Pty Ltd (ACN 076 292 987); Fourth Respondent: Stratti Ocean & Earth Works Pty Ltd (ACN 067 274 220)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Construction Industry, Fraud, Onus of Proof, Expert Evidence
Industrial Relations Contracts Unfair Contracts Construction Industry Fraud Onus of Proof Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paolo Bataglia

First Applicant

Maria Luz Bataglia

Second Applicant

Samuel Edward Stratti

First Respondent

Troy Kenneth Stratti

Second Respondent

Detail Rock Tools Pty Ltd (ACN 076 292 987)

Third Respondent

Stratti Ocean & Earth Works Pty Ltd (ACN 067 274 220)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract or arrangement between the applicants and respondents was unfair under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 as defined in s105
  2. 2 Whether the equipment contracted for and work promised by respondents was delivered as agreed
  3. 3 Whether documents relied upon by applicants were genuine or fabricated

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proof that the contract or arrangement in question was unfair. The evidence in support of their claims was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions between affidavits, oral testimony and diaries, and could not be preferred over the respondents' version where there was conflict. The central allegations about the supply and delivery of equipment and the promises of work were not made out on the balance of probabilities. The applicants' documentary evidence was not reliable. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants' case is dismissed
  • Liberty to apply for costs order within 28 days