Bonner v Fauna Productions Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Bonner brought a claim against Fauna Productions Pty Ltd, alleging that in consideration of entering into a work agreement as an actor for a television series, the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff a reasonable share of the profits if the show was successful. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff's claim was in the nature of a quantum meruit, whether it constituted a liquidated demand, whether it was an unenforceable agreement to agree, and whether the Limitation Act 1969 would likely defeat any claim. The court granted leave to strike out earlier pleadings and allowed the plaintiff to replead.

The court examined the nature of the plaintiff's claim, considering whether it was in the nature of a quantum meruit, which would allow for a fair and reasonable remuneration for services rendered, or a liquidated demand, which would permit a fixed sum to be claimed. Additionally, the court assessed whether the alleged agreement was an unenforceable agreement to agree, which would render the claim invalid. Furthermore, the court considered whether the Limitation Act 1969 would bar the plaintiff's claim due to the passage of time since the alleged agreement was made.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was not in the nature of a quantum meruit or a liquidated demand, as it was based on an alleged agreement that had not been finalised. The court also determined that the agreement was not an unenforceable agreement to agree, as there was evidence of an intention to be bound by the terms of the agreement. However, the court found that the Limitation Act 1969 was likely to defeat any claim, as the plaintiff had waited an unreasonable amount of time to bring the action. Consequently, the court granted further leave for the plaintiff to replead, allowing the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to address the limitations issue.

The court ordered that leave be granted for the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to address the issue of the Limitation Act 1969 and to clarify the nature of the claim. The court also directed that the defendant file a defence to the amended pleadings within 28 days. The court noted that if the plaintiff failed to address the limitation issue, the defendant would be entitled to have the claim dismissed. The case remains ongoing, with the plaintiff required to provide further details of the alleged agreement and the basis for the claim.