EPIC PROJECTS & CONSULTING v CAMERON [2026] SADC 55

Appellant: EPIC PROJECTS AND CONSULTING : MR J ROSSI - SELF-REPRESENTED IN PERSON Respondent: MS R CAMERON - SELF-REPRESENTED In Person Hearing Date/s: 19/03/2026 File No/s: CIV-25-012476 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil: Application for Review) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. EPIC PROJECTS & CONSULTING v CAMERON [2026] SADC 55 Judgment of his Honour Judge Soulio (ex tempore) 19 March 2026 MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW CONTRACTS Review of a Minor Civil Decision pursuant to s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA). Claim for services rendered - claim dismissed in Minor Civil jurisdiction of Magistrates Court - upon review. Held: the applicant has not established the existence of a contract with the respondent - matter correctly decided below - application for review dismissed. Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 38, referred to. DeVries v Australian National Railways Commissioner (1993) 177 CLR 472; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267; Plos v Mroz (2015) LSJS 276; Harradine v The District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 96, considered. -- 1 of 9 -- -- 2 of 9 -- EPIC PROJECTS & CONSULTING v CAMERON [2026] SADC 55 Introduction 1 The respondent, Ms Cameron, had engaged builders to conduct building work at her property. A concrete slab was poured. There were concerns about cracking in that slab. 2 The applicant, Epic Projects and Consulting, provides engineering consultancy services through its principal, Mr Rossi. 3 Initially there had been an inquiry made by Ms Cameron in March 2024 as to Mr Rossi's services. In April 2024 Mr Rossi contacted Ms Cameron inquiring as to whether she wished him to provide consultancy services. At that stage she stated her intention was to deal with the concreting contractor. 4 In November 2024 a conversation took place between Mr Rossi and Ms Cameron. There was a discussion regarding the fee for a report by Mr Rossi, and a quote or a suggestion that such a report would cost some $2,000. Arrangements were made for Mr Rossi to attend the site where the slab had been poured. On 24 November 2024 Mr Rossi attended. 5 Mr Rossi subsequently instituted a claim in the minor civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court for payment of a sum of $2,640 plus court fees for what he said was work undertaken at Ms Cameron's request. That sum, as is indicated in his Statement of Claim, was comprised of $400 to respond to emails, and texts, and calls between March 2024 and November 2024; and $2,000 for a site inspection and providing what was described as verbal advice, a summary email, and a report. Both sums were in addition to GST. 6 The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court by Judicial Registrar Burke on 30 September 2025. He delivered detailed ex-tempore reasons on that day. He dismissed the claim. The Application for Review 7 Mr Rossi, on behalf of Epic Projects and Consulting, issued a Notice of Review of that decision. The Notice of Review does not contain grounds but rather says that the grounds for review were to be provided … once we have received the reason from dismissal in writing, only verbal was given at the hearing. We have requested this dismissal in writing and will amend this claim once received. Judicial Registrar Burke made errors in the investigative inquiries method and we have new evidence. 8 Mr Rossi received the written reasons in respect of the Magistrates Court decision in December 2025. No amendment of the notice of review has been sought or made. I will regard, for the purposes of this decision, the combination of -- 3 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 2 submissions made and evidence given by Mr Rossi upon the hearing, as incorporating the grounds for review. 9 As I have said, the decision of the Judicial Registrar was an ex tempore decision delivered on 30 September 2025. The applicant, being the party dissatisfied with the judgment, made an application for this Court to review the matter pursuant to s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991. Such review is governed by s 38(7) of the act which relevantly provides that: (7) The following provisions apply to such a review by the District Court: … (b) the Court may inform itself as it thinks fit and, in doing so, is not bound by the rules of evidence; (c) the Court may, if it thinks fit, re-hear evidence taken before the Magistrates Court; … (e) in hearing and determining the review, the Court must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms. 10 Here, there was no application for me to rehear evidence, and no decision taken to rehear the evidence, although as I have said, I accepted the submissions made by both parties as part of the evidence in the matter. 11 I am obliged to accept the advantage enjoyed by the Judicial Registrar in a situation where the decision was based in not insignificant part upon his impression as to the credibility of the respective parties. 12 A finding of fact by the Judicial Registrar, based on the credibility of a witness, may only be set aside where the decision is either manifestly wrong by reason of error indicated by incontrovertible facts, or uncontested testimony, or was glaringly improbable, or is contrary to compelling inferences in the case. See for example DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission.1 13 However, as was observed in Fox v Percy,2 citing with approval the decision of the High Court in Warren v Coombes:3 … An appellate court is in as good a position as a trial judge to decide on the proper inference to be drawn from facts which are undisputed or which, having been disputed, are established by the findings of the trial judge. In deciding what is the proper inference to be 1 DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472. 2 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118. 3 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531. -- 4 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 3 drawn, the appellate court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it. 14 Any inference drawn or relied upon must reasonably arise from proven facts or circumstances. See TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks.4 15 As Tilmouth DCJ observed in Plos v Mroz,5 It is opportune to acknowledge that magistrates are called upon to determine difficult factual issues often in trying circumstances and under considerable time pressures. Magistrates are required to conduct proceedings in minor civil claims by means of an inquiry rather than adversarial contest between the parties and they are neither bound by the rules of evidence nor technicalities and legal forms. Nevertheless the fundamentals of a fair trial are not displaced for even though a tribunal may be bound to inform itself on any matter as it thinks appropriate, as is the case in respect of the minor civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, the court remains subject to the requirements of procedural fairness. These principles include the opportunity to be confronted with material upon which a party is proposed to be contradicted and the right to be given an opportunity to explain any matter upon which the court might make adverse findings. 16 Tilmouth DCJ went on to say: The right of review against such decisions is confirmed by s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act. Section 38(7)(d)(i and ii), thereof furnishes the District Court with powers of affirmation and recission as well as the capacity to substitute a judgment it considers appropriate. There is no power of remission except in respect of reviews against a fault or summary judgments. These rights of review are not governed by the administrative and disciplinary sections contained in Part 6, sub-division 1-3 of the District Court Act because of s 42(b)(1) thereof, so that the application for review therefore stands to be determined according to the principles summarised by Blue J in Harradine v The District Court of South Australia.6 17 The effect of these principles, to paraphrase, is that a review is neither in the nature of an appeal stricto sensu, nor is it necessarily a hearing de novo by way of rehearing. Rather, the District Court may inform itself as it thinks fit, and by having regard to the evidence adduced below and the magistrate's finding of fact, act according to the substantial merits of the case, and may, as I have said, rehear evidence unconfined by the principles applicable to the introduction of fresh evidence. 18 Furthermore, should the court form the view that a magistrate made an error vitiating the judgment, or had not made findings of fact necessary to determine the matter, it becomes necessary to rehear the evidence pertaining to the flawed findings, given that it does not enjoy the power to remit for rehearing. 4 TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267. 5 Plos v Mroz (2015) LSJS 276. 6 Harradine v The District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 96. -- 5 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 4 The Review Hearing and the Original Decision 19 At the outset the applicant sought to adjourn the review hearing. The applicant had unsuccessfully sought to subpoena as witnesses upon the hearing of the review, Mr Formosa, the respondent's partner, and Mud Cake, a consultancy that had provided Ms Cameron a report in relation to the building issues in question. The applicant did not articulate the relevance of the proposed evidence from such witnesses. I refused the application to adjourn the hearing in order to reagitate the subpoenas. 20 The application for review was, as I have said, filed in the absence of a copy of the written reasons below. I have indicated the basis on which I am prepared to proceed. 21 The applicant, in accordance with an order made on 28 January 2026, had filed an affidavit which did not seek to introduce new evidence, but rather appended some of the correspondence between the parties in the period leading up to the hearing and during the course of the dispute. 22 The issues between the parties may be shortly stated on the pleaded claim: was there a meeting of minds in relation to contractual issues, that being an essential part of the formation of a contract? On the evidence available there was no agreement as to the basis of any charge being made by the applicant in respect of a visit to the respondent's premises. There was no formal engagement, and no contract of engagement. It is a matter perhaps of notorious common knowledge that with a number of trades (and I do not equate Mr Rossi with a tradesperson) to nominate what might be described as a callout fee. Here, there was no such discussion. Mr Rossi did not suggest, or give evidence, that he had communicated to Ms Cameron his hourly rate, the basis of charging, or that there would be a fee for his attendance. 23 The Judicial Registrar had set out his findings in detail. He found that Mr Rossi had not provided a quote for the initial $400 plus GST charge in respect of responding to emails, texts and calls, and indeed found that Mr Rossi had not suggested that he had provided such a quote. As the Judicial Registrar found, it appears that Mr Rossi simply decided to charge for the time he had spent communicating with Ms Cameron in the lead-up to the site visit. On the evidence, the communications were limited, and it is not clear as to the basis of the formulation of that charge. In any event, the Judicial Registrar found that there was not a binding contract in relation to that aspect of the claim. 24 The Judicial Registrar noted that Mr Rossi alleged that he had a binding contract with Ms Cameron in relation to the charge for $2,000 plus GST, which incorporated the preparation of a detailed expert report. 25 That report was dated, on its face, 29 November 2024. Mr Rossi asserted that the report had been posted to Ms Cameron, but was not emailed. Ms Cameron said that she had not seen that report prior to the day of the hearing in the Magistrates -- 6 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 5 Court on 30 September 2025. The Judicial Registrar said in his reasons that he observed Ms Cameron's reaction at the bar table when she was provided with a copy of the report. He accepted, taking into account her reaction to that receipt, that her evidence was genuine when she said she had not seen the report prior to its production at court on that day. 26 Before me, Ms Cameron said the report was also not tabled at an arbitration proceeding prior to the hearing of the minor civil claim, which had been held in an endeavour to resolve the matter between the parties. 27 The Judicial Registrar found that the report was not written, completed, signed and posted on 29 November 2024. He set out in detail his reasons for that finding. I bear in mind that the date of that report is some five days after the visit to Ms Cameron's property. The Judicial Registrar found that it was highly unusual that Mr Rossi had decided to post the report rather than email it to Ms Cameron. All of their other communications were by digital means including email and SMS. There was no evidence to suggest Ms Cameron had received the report. The Judicial Registrar noted that Ms Cameron made no reference to receiving the report in any SMS or email. 28 The Judicial Registrar found that Ms Cameron's decision to engage another contractor to provide a report was consistent with not having received any report from the applicant. 29 The Judicial Registrar conducted a detailed analysis of the correspondence and invoices and found that the applicant did not assert that an engineering inspection report had been completed, or an invoice rendered for that work, until about the time proceedings were instituted in the Magistrates Court. As the Judicial Registrar said: 'This suggests he only completed the report to bolster his claim after he commenced the proceeding.' 30 I take into account the detailed analysis of the correspondence and invoices set out by the Judicial Registrar in his reasons.7 I note the inexplicable variations in the invoices rendered from time to time, including invoices in the sum of $660 inclusive of GST; $1,485 inclusive of GST; and an email claiming an entitlement to $1,350 plus GST; before what was described as a third invoice being rendered in the sum of $2640 inclusive of GST, that being the amount of the claim below. 31 As the Judicial Registrar found, there was no record in the invoice, or the covering email, to explain why the amount charged had increased from the previous amount of $1,485 to $2,640. The Judicial Registrar also found that there was no charge specifically referrable to the preparation of a report. The Judicial Registrar noted that the latest iteration of the invoice was emailed by Mr Rossi to Ms Cameron at 4.43 pm on 6 June 2025, some 20 minutes or so prior to the filing of the claim in the Magistrates Court. 7 Judgment of Judicial Registrar Burk (ex tempore) delivered 30 September 2025 at [26-42]. -- 7 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 6 32 During the course of the hearing below, the applicant handed up what was described as a fourth invoice which he ultimately resiled from. Ms Cameron gave evidence below that she had never seen the fourth invoice before the day of the hearing, and had searched her email inbox during the trial and could not locate a copy of that fourth invoice, or a covering email purporting to enclose it. The Judicial Registrar accepted her evidence about that. 33 The Judicial Registrar found that the applicant's evidence about the creation and sending of the fourth invoice was particularly troubling. He said: The applicant appeared to be willing to say anything about the invoice if he believed it assisted his case. He also did not hesitate to change his evidence if his earlier evidence was unhelpful to his case. 34 When the Judicial Registrar highlighted the inconsistencies, the applicant said he was not well and that his recollection was not fantastic because “we probably do ten of these a day.” The Judicial Registrar found that the applicant had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the substantial changes the applicant had made to the invoice amounts and their descriptions. He said the explanations offered were wholly unconvincing. 35 As the Judicial Registrar found, the applicant bore the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that there was in place a contract with Ms Cameron, and proving what the terms of that contract were. The Judicial Registrar found ultimately that there was not a contract. He found that to the extent that Ms Cameron had any contractual obligation to pay the applicant for time on the site visit because of text messages, emails, and telephone conversations they had prior to the attendance, then any implied term was subject to Ms Cameron being satisfied with the applicant's ability to deliver a useful report; that the cost of that report was not disproportionate to the cost of repairing the concrete slab; and that the preparation of the report was subject to Ms Cameron instructing the applicant to proceed with the preparation of the report at the conclusion of the site visit. As the Judicial Registrar found, if any of those conditions were not met, then Ms Cameron was not obliged to make any payment to Mr Rossi. 36 The Judicial Registrar found that Ms Cameron was not satisfied that Mr Rossi could deliver a useful report, and found that Mr Rossi had not been instructed to prepare a report, and accordingly the pre-conditions were not met. 37 Ms Cameron reiterated that evidence before me today, and said that following the discussions with the applicant, she came to the conclusion that he would not be able to provide a useful report. She formed the view that he did not present his opinions in a coherent and logical way. She had determined not to proceed. -- 8 of 9 -- [2026] SADC 55 7 Conclusion 38 I observed during the course of presentation of Mr Rossi’s submissions that such submissions were discursive and somewhat difficult to follow. I do not say that critically but it is consistent with the view formed by Ms Cameron. 39 It is apparent from the communications that followed the visit on 24 November 2024, that it was not Ms Cameron seeking advice in communications, but rather the applicant pursuing Ms Cameron to ascertain whether assistance was required from the applicant by way of advice or opinion. That course of conduct by Mr Rossi continued, and it is apparent that Ms Cameron was not responding to those inquiries. 40 I accept Ms Cameron's submission that in effect Mr Rossi's attendance was in the hope of being contracted to provide an expert report in relation to issues which arose out of the building work. 41 I find that there was no contract. I consider that the Judicial Registrar conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and formed a cogent view as to the reliability of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses in arriving at his conclusion that the claim should be dismissed. I am not persuaded that the application for review should be granted. Indeed I take the view that the Judicial Registrar correctly decided the issues as between the parties, and accordingly I dismiss the application. -- 9 of 9 --