Bichler v Ipex ITG Pty Ltd - [2007] VSC 241

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL 7 EQUITY DIVISION

No. 6316 of 2006

GADI BICHLER	Plaintiff
V
IPEX ITG PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 JULY 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 JULY 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bichler v Ipex Itg Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 241

---

Practice and Procedure – Discovery – claim for taking of accounts

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Cawthorn	Vardalis & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr R Berglund QC	AJH Lawers

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal from the whole of the order of the Master made 22 June 2007 directing the defendant to make discovery of the following documents:

A.the source documentation for the Gaddie Metz and Kahan H. I. G. Report discovered by the defendant;
B.any other documents evidencing or at all supporting any calculation of the
EBITDA of the Defendant's HIG Division during the period of the plaintiff's employment by the defendant;
C.copies of correspondence between the defendant and Gaddie Metz and Khan or any other party relating to the calculation of the EBIDTA for the defendant's HIG division for the period of the plaintiff's employment;
D.any documents evidencing or referring to the calculation or payment to the Plaintiff or any other party of the amount referred to in paragraph 5 and 8A of the second further amended statement of claim.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the summons dated 24 May 2007, as amended 20 June 2007.

The action has been brought by the plaintiff to recover a performance-based bonus to which he claims to be entitled pursuant to an employment agreement between him and the defendant entered into on 30 June 2003. He seeks the taking of accounts and payment of the balance found due.

It is common ground that the agreement expressed the bonus entitlements, to operate over the first 12 months of employment, in the following terms

"If EBITDA [Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization] per the Business Plan attached as Annexure B is $500,000 or greater at the end of 12 months , then you [the plaintiff] would receive a $100,000 bonus payment and 50% of all EBITDA greater than $500,000."

The plaintiff has pleaded that in December 2003 he received on account of the bonus entitlement $100,000 together with $40,000 on account of his eventual bonus entitlements to 50% of the EBITDA greater than $500,000 (para 5).

There are issues, however, as to the precise interpretation of the bonus provision. The plaintiff argues that the EBITDA referred to is that of the defendant. The defendant, however, argues that, at best from the plaintiff’s point of view, the words "per the Business Plan" require the determination of the EBITDA of the various activities set out in the Business plan rather than that of the business conducted throughout Australia by the defendant. The defendant also argues that the reference…

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 Bichler v Ipex ITG Pty 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: [2007] VSC 241
Decision Date: 6 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court involved a claim by Bichler against Ipex ITG Pty Ltd, regarding an application for discovery of documents and accounts. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff was entitled to access certain financial records held by the defendant, as part of the discovery process in a broader legal action. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the scope and extent of the discovery order sought by Bichler.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the extensive discovery of financial records from the defendant. The Court had to assess the relevance and proportionality of the discovery sought in relation to the claims made by Bichler. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the discovery sought was necessary for the fair administration of justice, and whether any potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed the benefit to the plaintiff in obtaining the requested documents.

In delivering its judgment, the Court held that the plaintiff had not provided adequate justification for the extensive discovery of financial records. The Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in discovery applications, noting that while discovery is a powerful tool, it must be exercised with due regard to the principles of fairness and necessity. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the discovery sought and the claims in the proceeding, leading to the conclusion that the application for discovery should be limited in scope. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiff's application for discovery to a more limited extent, reflecting the specific needs of the case.

Orders