WILLIAMS v MOBILETRACK PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 264

WILLIAMS v MOBILETRACK PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER, POWELL JJA and SHEPPARD AJA 29 September 1998, 24 November 1998

[1998] NSWCA 264

CONTRACT — Claim for work done as a consultant — Consideration of particular facts of matter — Claim found by trial judge to be false because claim for hours worked inflated — No error of principle.

Meagher JA I agree with Sheppard AJA. Powell JA I agree with Sheppard AJA.

Sheppard AJA This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court (HH Bell DCJ) entered as a consequence of a verdict found against the appellant who was the plaintiff in the action. The action was to recover amounts for work said to have been done by the appellant for the defendant pursuant to a contract between them. In the statement of claim appended to the statement of liquidated claim filed in the District Court it was alleged that the appellant was at all material times a consultant with the respondent providing telecommunications services in relation to the development and engineering of technical services associated with various products. The relevant terms of the consultancy agreement were said to be that the respondent would pay the appellant at the rate of $100.00 per hour for all work done by him on its behalf, such work to include all meetings, presentations, discussions and/or either contact between the appellant and client and/or potential clients of the respondent. The rate of $100.00 per hour was applicable to all travel undertaken by the appellant on behalf of the respondent to and from such meetings, presentations, discussions and/or other contacts. ParaS of the statement of claim pleaded that on 30 January 1996 the respondent wrongfully terminated the consultancy agreement under which the appellant was retained. It may be mentioned at this point that, although one might be forgiven for thinking that that was an indication that there was to be a claim for damages based on the alleged wrongful termination of the agreement, no such claim was in fact made. The paragraph seems to be irrelevant to the cause of action which was in fact relied on.