Edensilk Pty Ltd v Retail STYSTEMS Pty Ltd - [2012] WADC 171

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: EDENSILK PTY LTD -v- RETAIL STYSTEMS PTY LTD [2012] WADC 171

CORAM: REGISTRAR KINGSLEY

HEARD: 26 JUNE 2012

DELIVERED : 7 DECEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 1020 of 2012

BETWEEN: EDENSILK PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
RETAIL STYSTEMS PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Summary judgment - Series of agreements - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to defend on part of claim
Judgment given on balance of claim

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P D Wright
Defendant: Mr C E Chenu

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Patrick Wright
Defendant: Bennett & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Morgan v Pallister [2004] WASC 188
The Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332
Watson v Foxman & Ors (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff, Edensilk Pty Ltd (Edensilk) is a provider of consultancy services. Edensilk pleads it entered into a series of agreements with the defendant Retail Systems Pty Ltd (Retail Systems).
Edensilk pleads five agreements with Retail Systems:
1An Assignment Agreement made 27 May 2010 (the Assignment Agreement),
2An Option and Service Agreement made 25 June 2010 (the Service Agreement),
3An oral agreement whereby Retail Systems agreed to pay Edensilk the cost of the registration of domain names (the First oral Agreement),
4An oral agreement whereby Retail Systems agreed to repay Edensilk the cost of incurring 121 matched reports on a number of potential recruits for the defendant at a rate of $500 plus GST (the second oral agreement),
5An oral agreement whereby Retail Systems agreed to repay the cost incurred by Edensilk in making available the MultiCOACH Success Factors online application to be used by personnel of Retail Systems. Edensilk pleads that pursuant to this oral agreement, Edensilk purchased a 12 month subscription to Multi‑Coach Success Factors for Retail Systems (the third oral agreement).
Edensilk goes on to plead, that through Paul Curtis (Curtis), it provided the services detailed in the five agreements to Retail Systems and the amount owing for these services totals $117,130.35. Edensilk pleads Retail Systems has refused to pay that sum. Edensilk has brought a chamber summons dated 26 April 2012 pursuant to O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971. That application is supported by the affidavit of Curtis sworn 24 April (Curtis' first affidavit) objection has been taken to certain paragraphs by counsel for Retail Systems. Retail Systems opposes the O 14 application and has filed an affidavit of Peter Noel Martin sworn 14 May 2012 (Martin's affidavit). A responsive affidavit by Curtis sworn 29 May 2012 has been filed (Curtis' second affidavit), which also has been objected to by counsel for Retail Systems.

The objections to Curtis' first affidavit

Counsel for Retail Systems objects to pars…

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 Edensilk Pty Ltd v Retail STYSTEMS Pty Ltd 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: [2012] WADC 171
Decision Date: 7 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Edensilk Pty Ltd v Retail Systems Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to adjudicate a dispute concerning a series of agreements between the parties. The plaintiff, Edensilk Pty Ltd, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Retail Systems Pty Ltd, in relation to certain financial obligations and contractual breaches. The crux of the case revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of these agreements, which were alleged to be in default by the defendant.

The primary legal issues before the court were the enforceability of the agreements, the existence of any breaches, and the appropriate remedies for those breaches. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the agreements were validly formed, whether the defendant had indeed breached the terms of those agreements, and if so, what relief was appropriate for the plaintiff. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently substantiated to warrant summary judgment.

The court examined the facts of the case, noting that each agreement was distinct and required individual assessment. It found that the agreements contained specific terms regarding payment and performance obligations, which were allegedly not met by the defendant. The court held that the agreements were valid and binding, and that the defendant had indeed breached the terms by failing to meet its obligations. Given the clear evidence of breaches and the lack of any defence or counter-claim from the defendant, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for the breaches identified.

In summary, the Federal Court found in favour of Edensilk Pty Ltd, awarding it the damages claimed. The court's decision hinged on the specific facts of the agreements and the evidence presented, emphasising that each case involving multiple agreements must be considered on its own merits.

Orders