Bond v Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 55 min read

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0089

IAN RICHARD BOND First Appellant

and

BURKE BOND FINANCIAL PTY LTD

(ACN 005 150 961)

Second Appellant

v

REES CORPORATE ADVISORY PTY LTD

(ACN 105 088 099)

and

REES SECURITIES LTD

(ACN 063 950 649)

First Respondent

Second Respondent

---

JUDGES MAXWELL P and TATE JA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 29 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT 7 February 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2013] VSCA 13
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd and Rees Securities Pty Ltd v Ian Richard Bond and Burke Bond Financial Pty Ltd (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, 18 May 2011)

---

CONTRACT – Whether trial judge erred in finding that the appellant was a party to Consultancy Agreement – Restraint of trade clause – Whether 12 month period of restraint of trade reasonable – Whether restraint of trade clause survived termination of Consultancy Agreement – Whether the respondent had repudiated the Consultancy Agreement – Repudiation not raised at trial – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellants Self-represented
For the Respondents Mr D R Luxton Consult Solicitors

MAXWELL P:

  1. I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Tate JA.  I agree with the orders which her Honour proposes, and with her reasons.

TATE JA:

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment given in the County Court whereby the trial judge upheld a claim by the respondents, Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd (‘RCA’) and Rees Securities Pty Ltd, against the appellants, Mr Ian Bond and Burke Bond Financial Pty Ltd (‘BBF’),[1] for damages for breach of contract and entered judgment in favour of the respondents in the sum of $275,000.[2]

    [1]Mr Bond is the sole director of BBF.

    [2]Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd v Bond (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, 18 May 2011) (‘Reasons’).

Sale of business  

  1. The respondents are members of a group of associated companies known collectively as the ‘Rees Group’.  The Rees Group provides accounting and taxation services, specialist corporate advisory services, wealth management and financial planning services.  The managing director and the ultimate owner of the Rees Group through a corporate structure is Mr Justin Mastores.

  1. In 2004, Mr Mastores was introduced to Mr Ian Bond by a business broker. The Rees Group was interested in purchasing an accountancy firm, then called ‘Burke Bond Securities Ltd’ (‘Burke Bond Securities’) which operated a corporate advisory business.  Mr Bond was a director of Burke Bond Securities and its principal employee.  In the first meeting between Mr Mastores, the other partners in the Rees Group and Mr Bond, Mr Bond said that he was wanting to ‘wind down’ his

professional activities.  Mr Mastores and the other partners were interested in taking over Mr Bond’s clients and continuing to work with those clients.

  1. Following negotiations between the partners and Mr Bond and a due diligence process, the Business Acquisition Agreement dated 16 December 2004 was entered into.  This agreement…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bond v Rees Corporate Advisory 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
[2013] VSCA 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this case were Bond, the appellant, and Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd, the respondent. The matter came before the court on appeal from a lower court's decision, which had held that Bond was bound by a consultancy agreement with Rees, and that a restraint of trade clause in that agreement was reasonable and enforceable. The appeal focused on the nature of the agreement, the enforceability of the restraint of trade clause, and whether the respondent had repudiated the agreement.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the appellant was indeed a party to the consultancy agreement, and if so, whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable and enforceable both during and after the term of the agreement. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the respondent had repudiated the agreement, a point that had not been raised during the initial trial.

The court found that the appellant was a party to the consultancy agreement. The restraint of trade clause, which limited the appellant's ability to engage in competitive activities for a period of twelve months following the termination of the agreement, was deemed reasonable given the nature of the business and the appellant's role within it. The court held that the clause survived the termination of the agreement and remained enforceable. The issue of repudiation by the respondent was not considered, as it had not been raised during the initial trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.