CHEP Australia Ltd v Flynn

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: CHEP Australia Ltd v Flynn [2019] NSWDC 614
Hearing dates: 6 & 7 March 2019
Date of orders: 01 November 2019
Decision date: 01 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Judge Levy SC
Decision:

1. Verdict and judgment for the second defendant on the plaintiff’s claim;

 2. The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.
Catchwords: MERCANTILE LAW – guarantee of contract for hire of pallets – whether guarantee enforceable; DAMAGES – whether claimed loss included unenforceable penalties – whether claimed loss has been proven: s 5D and s 5E of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 60(1)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5D, s 5E
Cases Cited: Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352; [1952] HCA 19
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2012] HCA 20
Helou v PD Mulligan Pty Ltd (2003) 57 NSWLR 74
Helvetic Investment Corporation Pty Ltd v Knight (1984) 9 ACLR 773
Jowitt v Callaghan (1938) 38 SR 512
McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67
Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2016] HCA 28
Pang v Byland Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 175
Re Carey Builders Pty Ltd (1997) 23 ACSR 754
The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; [1991] HCA 54
Zorom Enterprises Pty Ltd v Zabow (2007) 71 NSWLR 354; [2007] NSWCA 106
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: CHEP Australia Limited (Plaintiff)
Anthony Barry Flynn (First defendant)
Elizabeth Mary Flynn (Second defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr SA Lees (Plaintiff)
No appearance (First defendant)
Mr C Simpson (Second defendant)

  Solicitors:
Law Squared (Plaintiff)
No appearance (First defendant)
Somerville Laundry Lomax (Second defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/42715
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case

[1] – [3]

Parties, entities and undisputed factual background

[4] – [22]

Otiose defence by first defendant

[23]

Defence by second defendant

[24]

Issues

[25] – [28]

Evidence

[29] – [41]

Evidence of Ms Tadros – CHEP’s debt recovery officer

[30] – [32]

Evidence of Mrs Flynn – second defendant

[33] – [35]

Affidavit by Mr Sean Radburn – solicitor for second defendant

[36]

Absence of evidence of Company’s trading history

[37] – [41]

Determination of issues calling for decision

[42] – [81]

Construction of the application for commercial credit

[44] – [52]

Enforceability of the guarantee and indemnity

[53] – [63]

Quantum

[64] – [80]

Claim for indemnity costs

[81]

Disposition

[82]

Costs

[83]

Orders

[84]

Nature of case

  1. This is an action brought by the plaintiff, CHEP Australia Limited (“CHEP”) against the first and second defendants, Mr Barry Flynn and Mrs Elizabeth Flynn, formerly a married couple, seeking damages together with interest in the sum of $695,296.53, claimed in reliance of a purported guarantee and indemnity.

  2. The underlying contract for which CHEP seeks to enforce the guarantee entered into between CHEP and Flynn Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd (“the Company”) as…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CHEP Australia Ltd v Flynn 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
[2019] NSWDC 614
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CHEP Australia Ltd initiated proceedings against Flynn, seeking compensation for breach of a contract for the hire of pallets, as well as enforcement of a guarantee provided by Flynn for the obligations under the contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that Flynn had failed to honour his commitments under the contract and subsequently failed to fulfil his obligations under the guarantee. Flynn contested the enforceability of the guarantee and disputed the plaintiff's claim for damages, asserting that part of the claimed loss included unenforceable penalties.

The court was tasked with determining the enforceability of the guarantee and the validity of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. It needed to assess whether the guarantee was enforceable under the relevant laws and whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff included any unenforceable penalties. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the evidence presented to determine if the plaintiff had successfully proven its claim for damages.

The court found that the guarantee provided by Flynn was unenforceable due to procedural issues, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages based on this guarantee was also invalid. Furthermore, the court concluded that part of the damages claimed by the plaintiff constituted unenforceable penalties, which further undermined the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Flynn, dismissing the plaintiff's claim and ordering the plaintiff to pay Flynn's costs unless otherwise directed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the second defendant on the plaintiff’s claim;

2. The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.

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.