Legal Research
Cases
Destec Pty Ltd v De Haas

Destec Pty Ltd v De Haas

Case [2025] WASC 5 15 January 2025

Jurisdiction

Standing

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   DESTEC PTY LTD -v- DE HAAS [2025] WASC 5
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   30 JANUARY 2024
DELIVERED          :   15 JANUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1968 of 2023
BETWEEN:   DESTEC PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
WYATT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND
DAVID DE HAAS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out paragraphs alternatively whole of amended statement of claim - Claim that defendant's use of information is a breach of his duties under s 183 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Whether information sufficiently identified in statement of claim - Whether alleged improper use of information adequately pleaded - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 183
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 20 r 19(1)

Result:

Application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	MD Cuerden SC & P Sadler
Second Plaintiff	:	MD Cuerden SC & P Sadler
Defendant	:	J Taylor SC & J Nagle

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	HFW Australia (Perth)
Second Plaintiff	:	HFW Australia (Perth)
Defendant	:	King & Wood Mallesons

Cases referred to in decision:

ACN 656 077 020 Pty Ltd v Li (No 2) [2024] FCA 964
Andrews Advertising Pty Ltd v Andrews [2014] NSWSC 318; (2014) 99 ACSR 164
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Somerville [2009] NSWSC 934; (2009) 77 NSWLR 110
Chaffey Services Pty Ltd (atf Cataby Services Trust t/a Cataby Services v Doble [No 4] [2023] WASC 361
Dalgety Australia Ltd v Rubin (Unreported, WASCFC, Library No 5485, 24 August 1984)
Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172
Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 8) [2022] FCA 1404
English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 2; (2009) 81 IPR 1
McNamara v Flavel (1988) 13 ACLR 619
Metaxas v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2020] WASCA 27
Mineral Resources Ltd v Destec Pty Ltd [No 5] [2024] WASC 449
Niven v Grant (1903) 29 VLR 102; (1903) 9 ALR 122
Plus One International Pty Ltd v Ching (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1598
Rosetex Company Pty Ltd v Licata (1994) 12 ACSR 779
SBA Music Pty Ltd v Hall (No 3) [2015] FCA 1079
Trackem Pty Ltd v Revenue Partners (A Partnership) [2021] WASC 245
United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Herbert Smith Freehills [2018] VSC 347; (2018) 128 ACSR 324
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398

HILL J:

The defendant, Mr de Haas, is an engineer who, until 30 January 2018, was employed by the first plaintiff (Destec). In January 2018, Mr de Haas resigned as an employee of Destec and took up a role at Mineral Resources Ltd (MRL).
The dispute between the parties arises out of the competing developments of bulk ore shuttle systems by Destec and MRL. There are several proceedings between these parties…

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.

Continue reading Destec Pty Ltd v De Haas

Details

AGLC: Destec Pty Ltd v De Haas [2025] WASC 5
Case: [2025] WASC 5
Decision Date: 15 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Destec Pty Ltd brought proceedings against De Haas, asserting that his use of certain information constituted a breach of his duties under section 183 of the Corporations Act 2001. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether certain paragraphs or the entire amended statement of claim should be struck out due to insufficient identification of the information and alleged improper use. The court needed to assess whether the claim was adequately pleaded to allow the case to proceed.

The central legal issues were whether the information in question was sufficiently identified in the statement of claim and whether the alleged improper use of that information was adequately pleaded. The court examined whether the plaintiff had provided enough detail to substantiate the claim that the defendant had breached his duties under the Corporations Act. The court considered the specificity of the information and the clarity of the allegations of misuse, determining whether these elements were sufficient for the case to progress.

The court found that the information in the statement of claim was not sufficiently identified, and the alleged improper use was not adequately pleaded. The court held that the plaintiff had not provided enough detail to substantiate the claim, leading to the conclusion that the paragraphs in question should be struck out. Consequently, the court ruled that the amended statement of claim failed to meet the necessary legal standards to proceed, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

No final orders were made beyond the dismissal of the claims as the court determined the claims were not adequately pleaded and could not proceed. The court's decision underscored the importance of providing specific and detailed allegations in claims under the Corporations Act to ensure the case can be fairly assessed and progressed.

Orders