Data Transfer Services Pty Ltd v The Local Project Pty Ltd

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Data Transfer Services Pty Ltd v The Local Project Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 531

Hearing dates:

22 July 2024

Date of orders:

8 November 2024

Decision date:

08 November 2024

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Andronos SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the defendant.

(2)   The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs, on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

CONTRACTS — Implied terms — Terms implied in fact — Necessary to give business efficacy

CONTRACTS — Breach of contract — Consequences of breach — Right to damages

CONTRACTS — Remedies — Liquidated damages — Debt

ESTOPPEL — Estoppel by representation — Detrimental reliance

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 1995, s 69, s 135

Cases Cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266

Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37

Stowe & Devereaux Holdings Pty Ltd v Stowe (1995) 127 FLR 25

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Data Transfer Services Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
The Local Project Pty Ltd (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M McGirr (plaintiff)
Mr S H Hartford Davis (defendant)

Solicitors:
R Legal (plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (defendant)

File Number(s):

2023/00156446

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. On 30 January 2020, the plaintiff, Data Transfer Services Pty Ltd, and the defendant, The Local Project Pty Ltd, entered into a Service Agreement (the Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, the plaintiff was to provide IT, print and mail processing services in relation to the distribution of certain publications, including glossy magazines and a book. The plaintiff provided these services from a warehouse in North Parramatta, through which the defendant’s publications were processed and distributed.

2. In about late January 2023, the plaintiff conducted an internal audit, as a result of which it formed the view that it had significantly undercharged the defendant for services it had provided. Essentially, the plaintiff considered that it was entitled, under the Agreement, to charge for storage of the publications and that it had neglected to do so. It sent an invoice to the defendant on 27 February 2023, which the defendant refused to pay. The defendant considered that the plaintiff had no such right and that it was up to date with all properly rendered invoices from the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff threatened to exercise a warehouseman’s lien over the defendant’s stock then stored at the plaintiff’s warehouse. In response, the defendant brought proceedings in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court and obtained an order entitling it to enter the warehouse to recover its stock, on payment of the sum of $115,830 into the plaintiff’s solicitors’ trust account, to be held as security for the plaintiff’s claim. The Supreme Court proceedings were transferred to this Court and the plaintiff also commenced the current proceedings seeking the revised sum of $102,795 in debt or, alternatively, in…