Coefficiency Pty Ltd v Workforce International Pty Ltd - [2005] NSWCA 300

CITATION:
Coefficiency Pty Limited v Workforce International Pty Limited [2005] NSWCA 300
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S):
31/08/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

31 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Beazley JA at 34; Ipp JA at 34; Bryson JA at 1

DECISION:
Leave granted, appeal dismissed, order varied on Cross-appeal, see [35].

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT - termination - whether termination procedure was followed - decision on terms of non-standard contract - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Local Court Civil Claims Act 1970

CASES CITED:
Progressive Mailing House v Tabali Pty Limited (1985) 157 CLR 17 at 33.
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620 at 625, 627.
Laurinda Pty Limited v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) 166 CLR 623 at 6333-634.

PARTIES:
Coefficiency Pty Limited Appellant
Workforce International Pty Limited Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 40185/05

COUNSEL:
Mr M. Lawson Claimant
Mr P. Walsh Opponent

SOLICITORS:
Gadens Lawyers Claimant
Church & Grace Opponent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 11750/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Malpass AsJ

CA 40185/05

BEAZLEY JA
IPP JA
BRYSON JA
Wednesday 31 August 2005

COEFFICIENCY PTY LTD v WORKFORCE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Judgment

1 BRYSON JA: The claimant, Coefficiency, was the plaintiff in the Local Court where it sued the opponent, Workforce International, in a statement of liquidated claim dated 11 April 2002 for $30,449 damages. The cause of action was stated in the further amended statement of liquidated claim filed on 20 May 2003 (White book 34-35) to this effect.

2 The parties entered into a contract for the provision and use of a disaster recovery centre on or about 30 September 2000. The term of the contract was thirty six months. Workforce breached the contract about 20 February 2002. Notice of breach and termination were sent to the defendant by way of letter on 6 February 2002. It was also and apparently separately alleged that Workforce unlawfully terminated the contract on or about 14 February 2002.

3 The further amended statement of liquidated claim does not allege that Workforce was in breach of contract by repudiatory conduct which was followed by acceptance by Coefficiency of that repudiation. The Magistrate’s decision was not based on any such contentions. Workforce brought a cross claim which the Magistrate dismissed and there was no appeal to the Court of Appeal about the cross claim.

4 In relation to what appears to have been in issue on the claim and cross claim, the proceedings before the Local Court were remarkably complicated and extensive.

5 The contract of 30 September 2000 (white book 261) by cl 4 gave Workforce a guarantee “...for the availability and use of the Coefficiency disaster recovery centre subject to invoking the declared disaster procedure.”

6 In the contemplated working of the agreement, cl 11, the Co-Efficiency disaster recovery centre facility was to be set up and maintained to provide Workforce with a temporary workplace when Workforce invoked disaster…

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 Coefficiency Pty Ltd v Workforce International 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: [2005] NSWCA 300
Decision Date: 31 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coefficiency Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Workforce International Pty Ltd (the respondent) were parties to a dispute concerning the termination of a contract. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Beazley, Ipp, and Bryson JJA.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had validly terminated the contract in accordance with its terms. This involved an interpretation of the specific provisions of the non-standard contract governing termination.

The court's reasoning focused on the factual circumstances and the precise wording of the contract. It determined that the termination procedure stipulated in the agreement had not been followed by the appellant. Consequently, the termination was found to be ineffective. The court applied established principles of contract law regarding the necessity of adhering to express contractual terms for termination.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. The court also varied the original order on a cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted, appeal dismissed, order varied on Cross-appeal, see [35].

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.

CITATION:	Coefficiency Pty Limited v Workforce International Pty Limited [2005] NSWCA 300 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	31/08/2005
JUDGMENT DATE:	31 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Beazley JA at 34; Ipp JA at 34; Bryson JA at 1
DECISION:	Leave granted, appeal dismissed, order varied on Cross-appeal, see [35].

CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT - termination - whether termination procedure was followed - decision on terms of non-standard contract - no question of principle.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Local Court Civil Claims Act 1970
CASES CITED:	Progressive Mailing House v Tabali Pty Limited (1985) 157 CLR 17 at 33. Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620 at 625, 627. Laurinda Pty Limited v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre (1989) 166 CLR 623 at 6333-634.
PARTIES:	Coefficiency Pty Limited Appellant Workforce International Pty Limited Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40185/05
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Lawson Claimant Mr P. Walsh Opponent
SOLICITORS:	Gadens Lawyers Claimant Church & Grace Opponent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 11750/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Malpass AsJ