Australian Liquor Marketers v Sirapot - [2005] QDC 308

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Australian Liquor Marketers v Sirapot & Ors [2005] QDC 308

PARTIES:

AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR MARKETERS (QLD) PTY LTD

Plaintiff

v

SIRAPOT PTY LTD

First Defendant

and

CLIFFORD JOHN TUCKER

Second Defendant

and

ROZMAC PTY LTD

Third Defendant

FILE NO/S:

518/2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2005

JUDGE:

Rackemann DCJ

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

Cases cited:

Chen v ANZ Banking Group [2001] QSC 43
Edison Limited v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679
Gerrard v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662
Gold Ribbon Accountants Pty Ltd (in liquidation)v Shears (2003) 1 Qd R 683
Southbound Packers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 Qd R 559

COUNSEL:

Mr G Radcliff for the Plaintiff

Mr J Dearn for the 3^rd Defendant and Mr Wilson

Solicitors for Mr Delaney

SOLICITORS:

Corporate & Property Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Crawford Law for the 3^rd Defendant and Mr Wilson

Mr Peter Crawford for Mr Delaney

Introduction

These proceedings concern a quantity of liquor supplied by the plaintiff (“ALM”) to the first defendant (“Sirapot”) on credit, pursuant to terms agreed between ALM and Sirapot. The second defendant (“Tucker”) was a guarantor of Sirapot’s obligations.

The agreement between ALM and Sirapot provided that, for so long as the account remained in debit, the liquor supplied by ALM remained ALM’s property and that Sirapot, as bailee, had an obligation to store it in a separate area, so that it remained clearly identifiable. In certain specified events, including non-payment, ALM had the right, at its election, to enter the premises and take possession of its goods.

In April 2004, the third defendant (“Rozmac”) decided to exercise its rights under a fixed and floating charge, by entering into possession of Sirapot’s tavern. On 7 April 2004 Rozmac’s accountant, Mr Delaney, was authorised to act on behalf of Rozmac for that purpose. On 8 April 2004 Mr Delaney, in concert with a Mr Wilson of Rozmac, took possession of the tavern on behalf of Rozmac. At that time there was a substantial amount of liquor at the tavern, some of which had been supplied by ALM.

On 30 August 2004 the solicitor for ALM made written demand on Rozmac for the return of its liquor by 4 pm that day. On 1 September 2004, ALM commenced this action in which it sought, as against Rozmac, the return of stock to the value of $144,983.61 or, alternatively, damages for conversion and/or detinue in the same amount. The statement of claim pleaded, amongst other things, that Rozmac had, despite demand, failed, refused or neglected to return the plaintiff’s goods.

On 24 September 2004 it came to ALM’s attention that the tavern was to be sold, with settlement to take place on 27 September. On 27 September ALM applied and obtained, ex parte, a Mareva order restraining Mr Delaney, Sirapot and Rozmac, whether by themselves, their servants or agents, from disposing of the proceeds of sale to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Liquor Marketers v Sirapot and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QDC 308
Decision Date: 21 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Liquor Marketers v Sirapot was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a contractual matter between the parties, with Australian Liquor Marketers seeking compensation for losses they incurred as a result of breaches by Sirapot. The primary issue was whether Sirapot's actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, whether Australian Liquor Marketers were entitled to damages.

The court was tasked with determining whether there had been a breach of contract by Sirapot and, if so, the extent of the damages owed to Australian Liquor Marketers. The legal principles surrounding contractual obligations and the quantification of damages were central to the court's consideration. The court examined precedents such as Edison Limited v Bullock and Gerrard v Email Furniture Pty Ltd to understand the applicable legal standards and to ensure a consistent approach to breach of contract and damages assessment.

The Supreme Court found that Sirapot had indeed breached the contract, and that Australian Liquor Marketers were entitled to compensation. The court held that the breach was material and directly led to the losses claimed. The decision was influenced by previous cases such as Chen v ANZ Banking Group and Gold Ribbon Accountants Pty Ltd, which provided guidance on the assessment of damages in similar contractual disputes. The court awarded Australian Liquor Marketers the full amount of damages claimed, reflecting the significant impact of the breach on their business. The judgment underscores the importance of contractual integrity and the need for parties to fulfill their obligations under an agreement.

Orders