D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia - [2024] QSC 245

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia [2024] QSC 245

PARTIES:

D & L EVENTS PTY LTD

(plaintiff)

v
JAI OPETAIA

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 2868 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2024 – 1 May 2024; 3 May 2024

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The originating application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – REPUDIATION AND NON-PERFORMANCE – REPUDIATION – WHAT AMOUNTS TO REPUDIATION – where the plaintiff boxing promotion company contracted with the defendant boxer to be the defendant’s exclusive promoter – where the plaintiff was contracted by a broadcaster to broadcast fights – where the plaintiff’s contract with the broadcaster was not renewed after 2022 – where the defendant was required to participate in a match to defend his championship title within a certain period – where the defendant purported to terminate the contract because the plaintiff had not identified any television deal which would enable it to promote the defendant in Australia or overseas, and because the plaintiff failed to organise and promote fights for the defendant in Australia – where the defendant also terminated on the basis that the plaintiff sought to compel him to participate in overseas boxing matches organised by a third party promoter without his agreement – where the plaintiff contended that the purported termination amounted to repudiation – whether the plaintiff repudiated the contract so as to make the defendant’s purported termination of the contract lawful and effective

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – TERMS ESSENTIAL TO ENABLE PERFORMANCE – where the defendant argued that it was an implied term of the contract that the plaintiff would maintain its contract with the broadcaster or secure materially equivalent broadcasting rights – where the defendant argued that this implied term was breached and that breach entitled him to terminate the contract – where the parties contemplated that the plaintiff, but not the defendant, would be entitled to terminate the contract in the event that the broadcasting contract was lost – whether the term contended for could be implied into the contract

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – CHARACTER OR ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT OR REPRESENTATION – STATEMENTS AS TO FUTURE MATTERS AND PROMISES – where the defendant argued that he was induced to enter the contract by misrepresentations made by the director of the plaintiff such that the plaintiff could not claim damages for any unlawful termination of the contract by the defendant – where the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s director made representations as to the circumstances in which the plaintiff might lose its broadcasting rights – where the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s director did not disclose that the broadcasting rights…

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 D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia 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: [2024] QSC 245
Decision Date: 11 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

D & L Events Pty Ltd, a boxing promotion company, commenced proceedings against Opetaia Fa, a boxer, in relation to a contract whereby the plaintiff was to be the defendant's exclusive promoter. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's purported termination of the contract was ineffective because the plaintiff had not repudiated the contract. The defendant, in turn, claimed that the plaintiff had repudiated the contract by failing to secure broadcasting rights and by compelling him to participate in overseas matches without his consent. The defendant also argued that there was an implied term that the plaintiff would maintain its broadcasting rights, and that the plaintiff's failure to do so entitled him to terminate the contract. The defendant further claimed that he was induced to enter into the contract by misrepresentations made by the plaintiff's director, and that this precluded the plaintiff from claiming damages. The plaintiff sought damages for loss of commercial opportunities resulting from the defendant's termination of the contract.
The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had repudiated the contract, whether an implied term could be read into the contract, and whether the defendant was induced to enter into the contract by misrepresentations. The court found that the plaintiff had not repudiated the contract, and that the defendant's termination of the contract was therefore effective. The court also found that there was no implied term that the plaintiff would maintain its broadcasting rights, and that the defendant's termination of the contract was not based on any breach of such a term. Finally, the court found that the defendant was not induced to enter into the contract by any misrepresentations made by the plaintiff's director.
As the defendant's termination of the contract was effective, and as the plaintiff had not been induced to enter into the contract by any misrepresentations, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that it had lost any commercial opportunities as a result of the defendant's termination of the contract. The originating application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The originating application is dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia [2024] QSC 245
PARTIES:	D & L EVENTS PTY LTD (plaintiff) v JAI OPETAIA (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 2868 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 October 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 April 2024 – 1 May 2024; 3 May 2024
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDER:	The originating application is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – REPUDIATION AND NON-PERFORMANCE – REPUDIATION – WHAT AMOUNTS TO REPUDIATION – where the plaintiff boxing promotion company contracted with the defendant boxer to be the defendant’s exclusive promoter – where the plaintiff was contracted by a broadcaster to broadcast fights – where the plaintiff’s contract with the broadcaster was not renewed after 2022 – where the defendant was required to participate in a match to defend his championship title within a certain period – where the defendant purported to terminate the contract because the plaintiff had not identified any television deal which would enable it to promote the defendant in Australia or overseas, and because the plaintiff failed to organise and promote fights for the defendant in Australia – where the defendant also terminated on the basis that the plaintiff sought to compel him to participate in overseas boxing matches organised by a third party promoter without his agreement – where the plaintiff contended that the purported termination amounted to repudiation – whether the plaintiff repudiated the contract so as to make the defendant’s purported termination of the contract lawful and effective CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – TERMS ESSENTIAL TO ENABLE PERFORMANCE – where the defendant argued that it was an implied term of the contract that the plaintiff would maintain its contract with the broadcaster or secure materially equivalent broadcasting rights – where the defendant argued that this implied term was breached and that breach entitled him to terminate the contract – where the parties contemplated that the plaintiff, but not the defendant, would be entitled to terminate the contract in the event that the broadcasting contract was lost – whether the term contended for could be implied into the contract TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – CHARACTER OR ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT OR REPRESENTATION – STATEMENTS AS TO FUTURE MATTERS AND PROMISES – where the defendant argued that he was induced to enter the contract by misrepresentations made by the director of the plaintiff such that the plaintiff could not claim damages for any unlawful termination of the contract by the defendant – where the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s director made representations as to the circumstances in which the plaintiff might lose its broadcasting rights – where the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s director did not disclose that the broadcasting rights…