WESTPOINT CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 009 395 751) Second Plaintiff
AND
SUBIACO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Defendant
Catchwords:
Trial of preliminary issue - Tender for purchase of land - Contract - Damages - Whether defendant is liable to plaintiffs? - Breach of contract - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Alleged express representations - Alleged oral representations - Implied contract - Process contract - Identity of tendering party - Whether process contract exists? - Terms of process contract - Implied terms - Compliance with tender Design Guidelines - Implied term to act fairly - Implied terms of fair dealing and good faith - Alleged breaches of process contract - Acceptable variance from Design Guidelines - BP Refinery criteria for implied terms - Content of the obligation to act fairly and in good faith - No established case of breach of contract - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Alleged representations of defendant - "In trade or commerce" - Whether representation was misleading when acted upon? - Reliance - Causation
[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 Dockpride Pty Ltd v Subiaco Redevelopment Authority
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dockpride Pty Ltd v Subiaco Redevelopment Authority [2005] WASC 211
Case
[2005] WASC 211
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Dockpride Pty Ltd sought to recover damages from the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority, following a failed tender for the purchase of land. The primary legal issues were whether the Authority was liable to Dockpride under a contract, whether there had been misleading and deceptive conduct, and if so, whether Dockpride had suffered damages as a result. The court examined whether there was a binding contract between the parties, focusing on the existence of an implied process contract and the terms of such a contract, including the implied obligations of fairness and good faith.
The court held that there was no established case of a breach of contract by the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority. The court found that the tender process did not give rise to a process contract, as the parties had not entered into an agreement with mutual obligations. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no misleading and deceptive conduct, as Dockpride had not relied on any representations made by the Authority in trade or commerce, nor had they suffered any detriment as a result of any representations. The court concluded that Dockpride's claims for damages and misleading and deceptive conduct were unsuccessful.
The court dismissed Dockpride's claims and ordered that Dockpride pay the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority's costs of the proceedings. The court found that Dockpride had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a binding contract or misleading and deceptive conduct. The court also found that Dockpride had not demonstrated that they had suffered any damages as a result of the alleged breaches. The court held that the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority was not liable to Dockpride for any damages, and the proceedings were dismissed in their entirety.