Legal Research
Cases
Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida Ltd

Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 18 December 1998 31 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION g

Not Restricted

No. 2074 of 1998

BADGIN NOMINEES PTY LTD Plaintiff
(ACN 005 187 066)
v

ONEIDA LIMITED AND ONEIDA Defendant
COMMUNITY PTY LTD
(ACN 082 110 101)

---

JUDGE: Gillard J
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 14 and 15 December 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18 December 1998
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v. Oneida Limited & Anor
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSC 188

---

DISPUTE RESOLUTION - Contract - Term - Reference to Valuer as expert - Not an Arbitration - Court proceeding - Application to stay - Principles to apply - Discretionary considerations - Stay granted

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr J.D. Loewenstein Nathan Kuperholz
For the Defendant Mr P.J. Jopling, Q.C. Arthur Robinson &
with Mr D. Batt Hedderwicks

HIS HONOUR:

The return of a summons in the proceeding, issued by the defendants seeking an order that the proceeding be stayed pending the determination of a dispute between the parties by an expert pursuant to an agreement made between them.
Parties
The plaintiff, Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd, conducted the business of Stanley Rogers and Son which had been in operation for some 67 years and involved processing, importation and sale of cutlery and other products and also for the last 44 years in the business of decoration, importation and sale of crockery and other related products.
The managing director of the plaintiff is William Rogers whose father, Stanley Rogers, commenced the business.
The first defendant Oneida Limited is a company incorporated in the State of New York in the United States of America and involved in the business of wholesale crockery and cutlery in the United States of America and in other countries. The company has business interests in Australia through a joint venture with Royal Selangor in relation to retail cutlery and through an Italian company in relation to supplying catering equipment.
The second defendant, Oneida Community Pty Ltd, is incorporated in this country and was incorporated on the instructions of the first defendant in order to conduct part of its business in Australia.
Mr Gregg Denny is the managing director of the second defendant.
Basic Facts
The facts which led to the dispute between the parties, the institution of the proceeding by the plaintiff and the present summons can be briefly summarised. On 5 June 1998 the plaintiff sold to the first defendant the businesses respectively known as "Stanley Rogers and Sons" and "Westminster China" which were carried on by the plaintiff at premises in Sandringham.
The purchase agreement was in writing and was the result of negotiations between the parties and their solicitors over a substantial period of time.
The base purchase price was M$8.1 but this was subject to, inter alia, valuation of stock.
It was agreed that the purchaser would pay M$7.8 on the completion date which was 30 June 1998 and the balance was to be paid after an exercise called completion accounts was finalised.
By…

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 Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida Ltd 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: [1998] VSC 188
Decision Date: 18 December 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida Ltd involved a contractual dispute between two parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue was the interpretation of a contractual term that required reference to a valuer as an expert. Specifically, the dispute centred on whether this reference constituted an arbitration clause or if it was to be treated as a court proceeding.

The court was required to determine the nature of the contractual term and its implications on the dispute resolution process. It had to decide whether the term was an arbitration clause, which would bind the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration, or if it was a reference to an expert to provide an opinion, which would remain subject to judicial interpretation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's application to stay the proceedings was appropriate and if any discretionary considerations warranted such a stay.

The court concluded that the term did not constitute an arbitration clause but was merely a reference to an expert. The court held that the matter was subject to judicial interpretation and not binding arbitration. The court exercised its discretion to grant the stay, considering factors such as the potential for prejudice to the applicant if the proceedings continued, the likelihood of success on the substantive issue, and the interests of justice. The court found that the applicant's application to stay was justified and granted the stay as requested.

The court's final order was to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the expert's valuation report. This decision clarified the nature of the contractual term and provided guidance on the appropriate process for dispute resolution in such circumstances.

Orders