Cornerstone Hardware Brokers (Australia) Pty Ltd v Methven Australia Pty Ltd

Cornerstone Hardware Brokers (Australia) Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Methven Australia Pty Ltd, seeking to enforce an alleged variation to their written agency agreement. The dispute centred on whether the commission rates on sales of bathroom products were varied and whether such variation was contingent upon the execution of a formal written agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the commission rates were indeed varied and, if so, whether the variation was valid and enforceable under the terms of the original written agreement or any subsequent oral agreement. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the variation was conditional upon the execution of a formal written agreement, a point of contention referenced from the precedent set in Sagacious Procurement Pty Ltd v Symbion Health Ltd. The court also had to consider the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the plaintiff to quantify the loss claimed.

The court found that there was no variation to the commission rates as claimed by the plaintiff. The alleged variation was not supported by the evidence, and the condition for such variation, requiring a formal written agreement, was not satisfied. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to quantify the loss. The spreadsheets tendered by the plaintiff were deemed insufficient to prove the quantum of loss due to the lack of evidence from the author and the confusing nature of the witness evidence. The court held that the judge's decision to refuse the plaintiff's application to re-open the case on the issue of damages was within their discretion and could not be interfered with.

The appeal was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the plaintiff.