Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2)

Case [2006] FCA 1342

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1342

CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815) v PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD (formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)

NSD 2008 OF 2003

BENNETT J
22 AUGUST 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2008 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815)
Applicant

AND:

PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
(formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)
Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 AUGUST 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Cytel Pty Ltd pay Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd’s costs of today.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2008 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

CYTEL PTY LTD (ACN 098 580 815)
Applicant

AND:

PEOPLEBANK RECRUITMENT PTY LTD
(formerly MASTECH ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD and IGATE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD) (ACN 080 574 616)
Respondent

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

22 AUGUST 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 3 August 2006, I refused an application by Cytel for leave to carry on these proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor (Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 985). Cytel had sought leave for Mr Shroff, its sole director, to appear for it in these proceedings.

  2. After delivering judgment, Mr Shroff informed me that he was taking steps to retain a new firm of solicitors to act for Cytel.  I ordered Mr Shroff to notify Peoplebank of the identity of the new solicitors within seven days and the matter was stood over for directions this morning.

  3. I am informed by counsel for Peoplebank and it is apparent from an email that was copied to my associate, that it was not until late yesterday that Mr Shroff left a telephone message with the solicitors for Peoplebank stating that he had short-listed two law firms and that their evaluation of Cytel’s case would take another 10 days.  Mr Shroff stated in the email that ‘it may be advisable to postpone tomorrow’s listing for another two weeks’.  Mr Lucarelli tells me that the telephone message was left after 5:00 pm yesterday evening.  The email was not received by him until this morning.  The matter was called for hearing this morning for directions.  It was intended that the Court make substantive directions to bring the matter to a hearing.  There was no appearance for Cytel.  Peoplebank seeks an order that Cytel pay its costs of today. 

  4. Had Cytel informed Peoplebank that it had been unable to retain solicitors before yesterday, this matter could have been dealt with in Chambers by consent, without the cost of an appearance by Peoplebank.  Peoplebank’s costs for appearing today are wasted. 

  5. I order Cytel to pay Peoplebank’s costs of today.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

Associate:

Dated:        12 October 2006

Counsel for the Respondent: G Lucarelli
Solicitor for the Respondent: Thomson Playford
Date of Hearing: 22 August 2006
Date of Judgment: 22 August 2006
Details
AGLC
Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 1342
Case
[2006] FCA 1342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Cytel Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought to enforce a settlement agreement against Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd, the defendant. The case arose from a dispute over a settlement agreement that both parties had allegedly entered into in relation to previous litigation. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached the settlement agreement by not making certain payments as stipulated, and sought an order enforcing the agreement and for costs.

The court was required to determine whether the settlement agreement was valid and binding on the defendant and, if so, whether the defendant had breached the agreement. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs. The validity of the settlement agreement was questioned by the defendant, who argued that it had not been properly executed or was otherwise unenforceable. The court had to consider the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the defendant's liability for any breach.

The court found that the settlement agreement was valid and binding on the defendant, and that the defendant had indeed breached it by failing to make the required payments. The court found that the agreement was properly executed and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to costs, but limited the amount to what was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding, but reduced the amount to reflect the limited nature of the relief sought and the outcome of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Cytel Pty Ltd pay Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd’s costs of today.

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

BENNETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BENNETT J

Full text does not contain this section.