Mayo v W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 119

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mayo v W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 119 Hearing dates: 15 December 2014 and 24 March 2015 Decision date: 08 May 2015 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Gleeson JA at [2]; Sackville AJA at [125] Decision: 1. Appeal allowed in part. 2. Vary orders 1(c)(iii), 2(c)(iii), 3(c)(iii), 4(c)(iii), 5(c)(iii), 6(c)(iii), 7(c)(iii), 8(c)(iii) made by Sackar J on 8 October 2013, by deleting the figures "$0.00" appearing next to the words "Bank Fees" and substitute the figure "$10.00". 3. Vary orders 1(c)(iv), 2(c)(iv), 3(c)(iv), 4(c)(iv), 5(c)(iv), 6(c)(iv), 7(c)(iv), 8(c)(iv) made by Sackar J on 8 October 2013, by deleting the figure appearing next to the words "Amount Payable" and substitute the following figures in: a. order 1(c)(iv) – $2,707.55; b. order 2(c)(iv) – $217.79; c. order 3(c)(iv) – $881.85; d. order 4(c)(iv) – $421.02; e. order 5(c)(iv) – $875.51; f. order 6(c)(iv) – $402.28; g. order 7(c)(iv) – $468.93; h. order 8(c)(iv) – $1,144.50. 4. The appeal be otherwise dismissed. 5. Direct the parties to file within 14 days any consent order with respect to the amount owing (including prejudgment interest) by the respondents to the appellant in relation to bank fees under the lease agreements. 6. In default of agreement between the parties as to the amount of the judgment sum referred to in 5 above, direct the parties to file and serve within 21 days their proposed short minutes of order together with short submissions in support not exceeding three pages. 7. The appellant to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal. Catchwords: CONTRACT – relief – rectification – where the appellant leased equipment to the respondent pursuant to lease agreements – whether there was sufficient evidence of the parties' actual common intention to order rectification – whether the parties' intended to charge interest on a flat or reducible basis – whether the parties' intended that leases achieve the effect of charging GST correctly – whether the parties' intended that the payment of bank fees was required Legislation Cited: A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) ss 9-5, 9-40 Cases Cited: Bush v National Australia Bank Ltd (1992) 35 NSWLR 390 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337 Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Carlenka Pty Ltd (1995) 41 NSWLR 329 Equuscorp Pty Lt v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; 218 CLR 471 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; 76 NSWLR 603 Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 23; 128 CLR 336 Mayo v W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 120 New South Wales Medical Defence Union v Transport Industries Co Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 740 Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319 Pukallus v Cameron [1982] HCA 63; 180 CLR 447 at 452 Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 65; 69 NSWLR 603 Sindel v Georgiou [1984] HCA 58; 154 CLR 661 Vantage Systems Pty Ltd v Priolo Corporation Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 21 Winks v W H Heck & Sons Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 226 W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Mayo [2013] NSWSC 1063 W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd v Mayo (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1581 Texts Cited: J W Carter, Contract Law in Australia, (6th ed 2013, LexisNexis Butterworths) I C F Spry, The Principles of Equitable Remedies, (8th ed 2010, Lawbook Co) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Laureen Margaret Mayo (Appellant) W & K Holdings (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (First respondent) William Arthur Leonard (Second respondent) Representation: Counsel: H Stowe (Appellant) D Allen (Second respondent)