Copuss Pty Limited (ACN 139 802 805) v William Lawrence Nix

Copuss Pty Limited, trading as Copuss Constructions, sued William Lawrence Nix, the director of a company that had been contracted to carry out building works, for breach of contract, damages, and debt. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Queensland, where it was heard by Justice Byrne. The court was tasked with determining whether Copuss was entitled to terminate the contract due to a material breach by Nix, whether the notice of breach was validly served, and whether Copuss could rely on a breach to which it also contributed. Additionally, the court had to decide if Copuss was entitled to terminate the contract for Nix's repudiation, and if so, what damages Copuss was entitled to under the principles set out in Amman Aviation. The court also had to consider the difference between recovering a debt and damages for breach of contract, specifically whether interest was recoverable on the principal sum, and whether Copuss was entitled to restitution for the total failure of consideration.

The court found that Copuss was entitled to terminate the contract due to a material breach by Nix. It held that the notice of breach was validly served and that Copuss could rely on the breach to which it also contributed. The court held that Copuss was not entitled to terminate the contract for Nix's repudiation, but that Copuss was entitled to damages according to the principles stated in Amman Aviation. The court held that Copuss was entitled to recover interest on the principal sum as damages for breach of contract, but not as recovery of a debt. Finally, the court held that Copuss was not entitled to restitution for the total failure of consideration because the consideration did not include the benefit of a contractual promise not yet performed.

Justice Byrne ordered that Copuss was entitled to recover the amount of $146,940.10, being the sum due under the contract, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 24 March 2014 until the date of judgment, and costs. The court dismissed the claim for restitution.