Corporate Transport Services v Toll - [2005] NSWSC 166

CITATION:
Corporate Transport Services v Toll [2005] NSWSC 166

HEARING DATE(S): 2 & 3 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

3 March 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF:
Campbell J

DECISION:
Injunction to be granted, subject to undertaking as to damages from a particular additional corporation being available

CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY - injunctions - interlocutory injunctions - interlocutory injunctions which will be in practice final - interlocutory injunctions requiring constant supervision - interlocutory orders in circumstances where parties are in a relationship of personal trust and confidence - balance of convenience - whether interests of non-parties can be taken into account - undertaking as to damages - need to be from person or entity financially capable of performing it - interlocutory injunction sought where dispute about validity of termination of contract - appropriate form of order

LEGISLATION CITED:
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
179 Elizabeth Street v Austcorp Hotels Pty Ltd, (Young J, 13 December 1993, unreported)
Australia Asia Pacific Hotels Ltd v Australian Frontier Holiday Operations Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 340
C H Giles & Co Ltd v Morris [1972] 1 WLR 307
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
Curro v Beyond Productions Pty Ltd (1993) 30 NSWLR 337
Holiday Inns (Pacific) Inc v Leisure Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd (Federal Court, Sheppard J, 7 October 1987, unreported)
Liristis Holdings Pty Ltd v Q-Corp Marine Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 418
Patrick Stevedores Operations (No 2) v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Posner v Scott Lewis [1987] Ch 25
Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Ltd v Department of Community Services and Health (1989) 89 ALR 366
Spry, Equitable Remedies

PARTIES:
Corporate Transport Services Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
Toll Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 1651/05

COUNSEL:
R R Harper SC - Plaintiff
A Moses; F Hancock - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Hassett Dixon - Plaintiff
Clayton Utz - Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DUTY JUDGE LIST

CAMPBELL J

THURSDAY 3 MARCH 2005

1651/05 CORPORATE TRANSPORT SERVICES PTY LTD v TOLL PTY LTD

JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore (Revised 7 March 2005)

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff is a company which provides transport services in the Gosford/Central Coast region. It was incorporated in 1999 for the purpose of applying for appointment as the Gosford and Central Coast agent for Mayne Group Limited (“Mayne”). It tendered for the award of a contract, and that tender was successful. It resulted in a contract being entered into on 3 September 1999 between the plaintiff and Mayne.

2 The duties of the plaintiff under that contract involved it acting as the agent of Mayne in connection with freight and parcel delivery services. The plaintiff had responsibility for engaging its own staff and providing its own premises. The term of the agreement is one which, while it was not particularly clearly expressed in the agreement, seems to amount…

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 Corporate Transport Services v Toll 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] NSWSC 166
Decision Date: 3 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Corporate Transport Services, sought an interlocutory injunction against the respondent, Toll, to restrain Toll from terminating its contract with the applicant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction that would effectively be final, considering the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties. A secondary issue was whether the court could consider the interests of non-parties in deciding whether to grant the injunction.

The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties, noting that the applicant and respondent had a close working relationship and were in a position of personal trust and confidence. The court also examined the balance of convenience, taking into account the interests of non-parties, which is generally not permitted. However, in this case, the court found that the interests of non-parties could be considered due to the unique circumstances. The court further assessed the need for an undertaking as to damages, which must come from someone financially capable of performing it. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the granting of an interlocutory injunction, particularly in light of the dispute over the validity of the termination of the contract. The court emphasised that the appropriate form of order would depend on the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the relationship between the parties and the balance of convenience.

Orders