Legal Research
Cases
Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant

Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant

Case [2002] NSWSC 750 20 September 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-677

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant & Ors [2002] NSWSC 750

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1444/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29/7/02-1/8/02, 5/8/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 September 2002

PARTIES :

Fatimi Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Charlotte Bryant (First Defendant)
Richard Michael Joseph Bryant (Second Defendant)
NN&D Pty Limited (Third Defendant)
Robert Bruce McCullough (Fourth Defendant)
Nirmal Fernando (Fifth Defendant)
Joseph Richard Bryant (Sixth Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

COUNSEL : M B Evans (Plaintiff)
F Kunc; M Henry (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: John Cunningham (Plaintiff)
John Samuel Sheehy (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: TORTS - MISCELLANEOUS TORTS - conspiring to injure - meaning of "predominent purpose to injure the plaintiff" - factual findings about whether plaintiff suffered any loss in consequence of any conspiracy - TORTS - MISCELLANEOUS TORTS - conspiracy to injure by unlawful means - meaning of "purpose to injure the plaintiff" - meaning of "common intention to use unlawful means" - whether "unlawful means" needs to be activity which, if committed by one person alone without any conspiracy, would be actionable in damages - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - order made "until further order" - PROCEDURE - miscellaneous procedural matters - Mareva Orders - duration of

LEGISLATION CITED: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Conveyancing Act 1919
Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 (Cth)
Corporations Act 1990 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1975
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)
Law Reform Miscellaneous (Provisions) Act 1946
Real Property Act 1900
Supreme Court Act 1970

CASES CITED: AG Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Burton [2002] NSWSC 170
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [1991] 1 VR 637
Attorney General of the Commonwealth v Davids Holdings Pty Ltd (1993) ATPR 41-247
Balfour Williamson (Australia) Pty Ltd v Douter Luingner (1979) 2 NSWLR 844
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 66
Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Limited (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393
Blacktown Concrete Services Pty Ltd v Ultra Refurbishing & Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) (1998) 43 NSWLR 484
Bolton v London School Board (1878) 7 Ch D 766
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Cabasi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130
Coal Miners' Industrial Union of Workers of Western Australia
Collie v True (1959) 33 ALJR 224
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 52 CLR 713
The Cunard Steamship Company Limited v Stacey [1955] 2 Ll R 247
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Winter (1988) 92 FLR 327
G Scammell & Nephew Limited v Hurley [1929] 1 KB 419
Devlin v Collins (1984) 37 SASR 98
Fylas Pty Ltd v Vynal Pty Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 593
G Scammell & Nephew Limited v Hurley [1929] 1 KB 419
Galland v Mineral Underwriters Ltd [1977] WAR 116
Giblan v National Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland [1903] 2 QB 600
Green v Pulsford (1839) 2 Beav 75; 48 ER 1105
Gold Coast City Council v Pioneer Concrete (QLD) Pty Ltd (1998) 157…

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 Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant

Details

AGLC: Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant [2002] NSWSC 750
Case: [2002] NSWSC 750
Decision Date: 20 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Fatimi Pty Ltd as the plaintiff and Bryant as the defendant. The dispute centred around claims of conspiracy to injure, specifically whether Bryant had conspired with others to cause damage to Fatimi Pty Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy that involved unlawful means, aiming to cause economic harm. The court was tasked with determining the legal standards for establishing such a conspiracy, including the requisite intent and the nature of the unlawful means involved.

The primary legal issues involved the interpretation of the elements required to establish a conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. The court needed to decide whether the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the predominant purpose of the conspiracy was to injure them and whether the unlawful means had to be activities that would be actionable if committed by one person without a conspiracy. Additionally, the court had to interpret the phrase "unlawful means" and determine if it required an activity that would be actionable in damages if done by one person alone.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented regarding the defendants' actions and intentions. It found that for a conspiracy to injure to be established, the plaintiff must prove that the predominant purpose of the conspiracy was to cause harm. Furthermore, the court clarified that the unlawful means need not be an activity that would be actionable in damages if done by one person alone, as long as the means were part of a common intention to cause injury. The court also noted the importance of factual findings concerning whether the plaintiff suffered any loss as a consequence of the alleged conspiracy. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff had not met the necessary legal standards to prove the conspiracy claims.

The final orders of the court included the lifting of Mareva Orders that had been in place "until further order," indicating that the court was satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings concerning the alleged conspiracy. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal requirements for establishing a conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, influencing future cases involving similar claims.

Orders