Dupois v Galley Commodities Pty Ltd

Case [2016] QSC 167


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dupois & Anor v Galley Commodities Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] QSC 167

PARTIES:

CHARLES DUPOIS and ONE WORLD MUSIC FILM AND TV PTY LTD
ACN 139 986 753
(plaintiffs)

v
GALLEY COMMODITIES PTY LTD
ACN 607 868 548
(first defendant)
and
LLOYD GALLEY

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 12607 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 and 26 May 2016

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants in the sum of $100

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – where the defendants agreed to invest Trade Currency in the production of music videos for the plaintiffs’ songs – where the defendants agreed to set up a Trade Currency account in the name of the second plaintiff with an amount of $300,000 in Trade Currency in it – where, although not recorded in the contract, the account could only be set up with approval from the operator of the Trade Currency Exchange – where an account in the name of the second plaintiff was not set up – whether the defendants breached the contract by failing to set up the Trade Currency account – whether the plaintiffs have proved loss and damage arising from any breach

McCann v Switzerland InsuranceAustralia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579, cited
Rodin v Voyler Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 414, cited
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332, cited

Smith v South Wales Switchgear Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 18, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr Dupois appeared for the plaintiffs

T Gray for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Viana Lawyers for the defendants

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Dupois, is a recording artist.  The other plaintiff, One World Music Film and TV Pty Ltd (“One World”), is his company.  In November 2015 the plaintiffs were interested in obtaining finance to produce music videos for two of Mr Dupois’ works, songs called “Girls, Girls, Girls” and “It’s a Sexual Thing”.

  2. The first defendant, Galley Commodities Pty Ltd, is controlled by the second defendant, Mr Galley.  In November 2015, the defendants were associated with a Trade Currency business named BBX International Ltd. 

  3. Discussions occurred between the plaintiffs and the defendants about using BBX Trade Currency to pay for the costs of producing the two music videos.  This led to:

    (a)an initial contract dated 9 November 2015;

    (b)a further agreement dated 10 November 2015, styled “Understanding and Undertaking”; and

    (c)an addendum contract dated 24 November 2015.

  4. In essence, the defendants as “The Investor” initially agreed to set up a “Trade Currency Account with Card Access in the sum of AUD $300,000.00 (Trade Currency)” in the name of One World as part of a budgeted amount of $550,000 or its equivalent in Trade Currency.  The facility was to be provided within 14 days from the signing…

Continue reading Dupois v Galley Commodities Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dupois v Galley Commodities Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 167
Case
[2016] QSC 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dupois v Galley Commodities Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought to establish a Trade Currency account with the defendants, a sum of $300,000 to be deposited in the account. The defendants, who were to invest Trade Currency in the production of music videos for the plaintiffs' songs, agreed to establish the account in the name of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the contract by failing to establish the Trade Currency account, despite the fact that the account could not be set up without the approval of the Trade Currency Exchange operator, a fact not recorded in the contract. The plaintiffs further sought damages for the alleged breach.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants breached the contract by failing to establish the Trade Currency account. The court considered whether the requirement for approval from the Trade Currency Exchange operator was an implied term of the contract, and whether the failure to establish the account resulted in a breach of contract. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had proved loss and damage arising from the alleged breach.

The court held that the requirement for approval from the Trade Currency Exchange operator was an implied term of the contract, and that the defendants breached the contract by failing to establish the Trade Currency account. The court found that the plaintiffs had proved loss and damage arising from the breach, and awarded damages of $100 to the plaintiffs. The court held that the failure to establish the Trade Currency account was a material breach of the contract, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach.

The court made a final order that judgment be entered for the plaintiffs against the defendants in the sum of $100. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved their case, and that the defendants were liable for the breach of contract. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $100, together with interest and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendants in the sum of $100

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.