NARHEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v TELEMARKETING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED [1995] NSWCA 306

NARHEX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED vy TELEMARKETING AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY JA 10 February 1995

[1995] NSWCA 306

Priestley JA. On 18 November 1994 his Honour Judge Patten of the District Court gave judgment in favour of Telemarketing Australia Pty Limited (T) against Narhex Australia Pty Limited (N) in the sum of $194,788.56. N lodged a notice of appeal and applied for the judgment to be stayed pending the appeal.

The application came before me. When it began application was made for leave to amend the notice of appeal. Leave was granted. The amended notice should be filed within seven days from today.

Voluminous material was put in evidence, including the transcript of evidence before Patten DCJ and his reasons for decision. One item tendered before me by N, called PS1, was tendered only on a basis not agreed to by T. I do not think it should be admitted on the basis sought by N, and therefore reject the tender. I have considered all the other material.

From the material it appeared that T performed services for N in 1988 and that N complained that T never provided proper substantiation of the charges it made. T began proceedings in the District Court in 1988 claiming payment. N paid $66,311.86 into Court on 4 May 1989. The matter was in 1993 referred to an Arbitrator, who, on 5 January 1994, made an award in favour of T against N in the sum of $61,735.31. He refused T's claim for interest on this sum.

The case was re-heard before Patten DCJ. It was contested, in substance, only as to amount. T was put to proof of the work done and the charges for it. Patten DCJ found that the appropriate charge for the work done had been $81,238.85. As to interest, he found that N had agreed to a rate of.06 per cent per day on amounts unpaid 21 days from date of invoice and that N should pay such interest which amounted to $113,549.71.