Legal Research
Cases
Gilsan v Optus [No 3]

Gilsan v Optus [No 3]

Case [2005] NSWSC 518 3 June 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Gilsan v Optus [No 3] [2005] NSWSC 518

HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

3 June 2005

JURISDICTION:
Commercial List

JUDGMENT OF:
McDougall J at 1

DECISION:
See paras [82] and [83] of judgment

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT - whether purported clawbacks under cl 1.6 amount to refusals to pay - meaning of "refuse" - whether such clawbacks could be deducted from amounts due for later months - whether refusals to pay could be accumulated and applied against any final tranche payment - whether refusals to pay on one traffic stream can be applied against amounts owing under another traffic stream - whether application of grammatical principles appropriate in construction of agreement - SET-OFF - equitable set-off - nature of test to be applied - where accepted that set-off applied - where claims subject of set-off are denominated in different currencies - whether set-off operates to extinguish claim at date of judgment or as equity arises

LEGISLATION CITED:
Supreme Court Rules

CASES CITED:
Australian Electoral Commission v Timothy Lalara (1994) 53 FCR 156
AWA v Exicom Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR 705
Collins Hill Group Pty Ltd v Trollope Silverwood and Beck Pty Ltd [2002] VSCA 205
Covino v Bandag Manufacturing Pty Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 237
Goold v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 114 ALR 135
Heydon v NRMA Ltd (No 2) (2001) 53 NSWLR 600
Lord v Direct Acceptance Corporation Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (1993) 32 NSWLR 362
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 202 CLR 351
Murphy v Zamonex Pty Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 439
Rawson v Samuel (1841) Cr & Ph 161
Re Just Juice Corp Pty Ltd (1992) 109 ALR 334
Stehar Knitting Mills Pty Ltd v Southern Textile Converters Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 514
Stewart v Latec Investments Ltd [1968] 1 NSWLR 432
The Despita R [1978] QB 396

PARTIES:
Gilsan (International) Limited (Plaintiff)
Optus Networks Pty Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 50056/02

COUNSEL:
P M Biscoe QC/F Kunc (Plaintiff)
I M Jackman SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Gadens (Plaintiff)
Gilbert & Tobin (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

GILSAN v OPTUS [NO. 3] [2005] NSWSC 518

Index to Judgment

Para

The quantum issues 5

Quantum issue 1 7

Quantum issue 2 8

Quantum issue 3 13

Quantum issue 4 23

Quantum issue 5 30

Quantum issue 6 35

Quantum issue 7 39

Quantum issue 8 63

Quantum issue 9 65

Summary 81

Order 82

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

McDOUGALL J

Friday 3 June 2005

NETWORKS PTY LIMITED [No 3]

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In Gilsan v Optus [2004] NSWSC 1077, I considered and decided a large number of issues agreed between the parties. The parties had hoped that the resolution of those issues would enable their various claims against each other to be quantified, and thereby (subject, of course, to any appeal and its outcome) resolve the matters in dispute.

2 That hope…

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 Gilsan v Optus [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Gilsan v Optus [No 3] [2005] NSWSC 518
Case: [2005] NSWSC 518
Decision Date: 3 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gilsan v Optus, the plaintiff, Gilsan, sought to recover payments due under a series of agreements with Optus, an internet service provider. The dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of the contracts, particularly in relation to the application of clawback provisions, set-off, and the currency in which the payments were denominated. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the clawback provisions amounted to refusals to pay under the agreements, whether such clawbacks could be deducted from amounts due for later months, and whether refusals to pay could be accumulated and applied against any final tranche payment. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether refusals to pay on one traffic stream could be applied against amounts owing under another traffic stream. The court also considered whether grammatical principles were appropriate in the construction of the agreement, and if equitable set-off could be applied where the claims were denominated in different currencies.

The court held that the clawback provisions did not amount to refusals to pay, and therefore, could be deducted from amounts due for later months. The court also found that refusals to pay could be accumulated and applied against any final tranche payment. Furthermore, the court ruled that refusals to pay on one traffic stream could be applied against amounts owing under another traffic stream. In relation to the application of grammatical principles in the construction of the agreement, the court found that such principles were appropriate. Finally, the court held that equitable set-off could be applied where the claims were denominated in different currencies, but the set-off would operate to extinguish the claim at the date of judgment rather than as equity arose.

The final orders of the court were that Optus was required to pay the outstanding amounts due to Gilsan, less any applicable clawbacks, and that the set-off would operate to extinguish the claim at the date of judgment.

Orders