Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in a case seeking to set aside subpoena under r.15A.09 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – objectives of ss.3(2) and 23 of Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth) – proceedings listed for mediation before evidence is ordered to be filed – relevant considerations – application in a case and subpoena stood over until after mediation of proceedings.
The Application in a Case filed by the respondent on 26 July 2013 be stood over to a date to be fixed by the Court, after the mediation of the proceedings on 26 August 2013.
The subpoena filed by the applicant on 17 July 2013 be stood over to a date to be fixed by the Court, after the mediation of the proceedings on 26 August 2013.
Within 14 days from 26 August 2013 the parties are to notify my associate of the outcome of mediation and any directions in respect of the proceedings they seek to have made by the Court.
The parties have liberty to apply to the Court on 5 clear days’ notice.
Costs be reserved.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY
SYG 871 of 2013
LAURENCE COLE
Applicant
And
QUEST SOFTWARE PTY LTD (ABN 81 078 118 144)
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application filed on 26 April 2013 by the applicant, Laurence Cole (“Mr Cole”), alleging breaches by the respondent, Quest Software Pty Ltd (“Quest”), of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the “TPA”), the Australian Consumer Law (the “ACL”) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (the “FTA”) in respect of Mr Cole’s employment with Quest. It is not necessary at this stage to canvas the substantive application, however, this will be addressed in further detail below.
On 17 July 2013 Mr Cole’s representatives issued a subpoena to Quest (the “Subpoena”) seeking the production of documents, which contained a schedule in the…
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.
Continue reading Cole v Quest Software Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cole v Quest Software Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 1160
Case
[2013] FCCA 1160
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Cole v Quest Software Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr. Cole, sought to enforce an undertaking given by the respondent, Quest Software Pty Ltd, in settlement of prior proceedings. The undertaking related to the respondent's obligation to pay Mr. Cole a sum of money, and the dispute concerned whether this undertaking had been breached. The matter came before Lloyd-Jones J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had breached the terms of the undertaking by failing to pay the agreed sum by the stipulated deadline. This required the Court to interpret the precise wording of the undertaking and determine if the respondent's actions, or lack thereof, constituted a repudiatory breach of that agreement.
Lloyd-Jones J found that the undertaking was clear and unambiguous in its terms, requiring payment by a specific date. The Court held that the respondent's failure to make the payment by that date constituted a breach of the undertaking. The legal principle applied was that a clear and unqualified undertaking to pay a sum of money by a certain date, if not met, amounts to a breach of that undertaking. The Court rejected arguments that sought to introduce ambiguity or excuse the non-payment.
The Court ordered that the respondent pay the outstanding sum to the applicant, together with interest and costs.