Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) P/L v Nicholas Skarlatos [NTMC]

• Jurisdiction: Northern Territory
• Court: Unspecified Court
• Judge: Ms Blokland SM,Jenny Blokland
• Judgment Date: 31 December 2003
• Date: 31 December 2003
• Docket Number: FILE NO(s): 20216541

[2003] NTMC 070

Local Court

IN THE LOCAL COURT AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

Decision of:

Jenny Blokland SM

FILE NO(s): 20216541

Between:

Rapid Metal Developments (Australia) P/L

Plaintiff

and

Nicholas Skarlatos

Defendant

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Ms McLaren

Defendant: Ms Farmer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Blokland SM

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against the decision of Judicial Registrar Monaghan delivered on 17 September 2003 in which she ordered the default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff on 29 January 2003 to be set aside. Judgement had previously been entered in the sum of $30,150.85 inclusive of costs and interest.

2 The appeal is conducted by way of re hearing, although Judicial Registrar Monaghan's judgment was referred to throughout the hearing and provided a useful guide to the issues between the parties.

The Judicial Registrar's Decision

3 Judicial Registrar Monaghan came to the conclusion that the default judgment was irregular and should therefore be set aside. Part of her reasoning was that in her view the original claim was partly for a liquidateddebt and partly unliquidated. Naturally she concluded the unliquidated portion should have been referred to an assessment hearing. Judicial Registrar Monaghan also found a number of other irregularities in the pleadings and at one point ordered the filing of further affidavit material to clarify the basis of aspects of the plaintiff's claim.

Arguments before the Local Court

4 Ms McLaren disputes the conclusion of the learned Judicial Registrar contending that she misappliedAlexander v AJAX Insurance Company Limited 1956 VLR 436. Ms McLaren argued that the debt, (being a debt for the provision and transport of certain materials to the Defendant in East Timor) is a liquidated claim. She relies on those parts of Alexander v Ajax indicating that a claim may still be characterised as a liquidated claim for goods sold and delivered or work and labour done, where no price or rate has been fixed by the parties. Such a claim, it is argued, is still to be regarded as a liquidated claim. (Alexander v Ajax at 440)

5 That part of the argument relates to part of the dispute concerning an assessment of the cost of returned materials from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has assessed the cost of those materials including damage to them. It also relates to a question over the calculation of transport costs.

6 The Defendant contends in this case that all outstanding moneys owed to the Plaintiff have been paid. The Defendant argues that the irregularities in pleadings are such that the judgment should not stand and still presses that the Judicial Registrar was correct in characterising the claim as partly liquidated.

The alleged discrepancies

7 The Defendant alleges the statement of Claim is wholly deficient. The following points are noted:

• • The judgment sum differs from the amount claimed in the Statement of Claim.

• • There is no clarification of the existence of a trading account.

• • Nothing is pleaded concerning an ability to change interest.

• • Nothing is pleaded to identify whether the amounts outstanding concern the hire of transport of materials

• • Nothing is in the pleadings to indicates what materials the plaintiff ‘deemed’ to be unreturnable and what was charged for (It is argued it is unfair for the defendant to have a guess)

• • The interest in the schedule to the statement of claim is irregular.

• • The transport costs are not properly particularised.

• • The contract between the parties is not properly pleaded, making no reference to a trading account which is apparently relied on to found liability.

In response Ms McLaren has raised...