Legal Research
Cases
Green v Wilden Pty Ltd

Green v Wilden Pty Ltd

Case [2005] WASC 83 (S) 9 August 2005

Orders and directions providing for various forms of equitable relief

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL
CITATION	:	GREEN & ORS -v- WILDEN PTY LTD & ORS [2005] WASC 83 (S)

CORAM

: HASLUCK J

HEARD

:	4-21 NOVEMBER 2003, 15-28 APRIL 2004, 5, 11, 12, 21, 26, 27, 31 MAY 2004, 1-4, 8-14, 21-30 JUNE 2004, 1 & 2 JULY 2004, 29 & 30 NOVEMBER 2004, 19 MAY 2005 & 14 JUNE 2005

DELIVERED

: 10 MAY 2005

SUPPLEMENTARY

DECISION

: 9 AUGUST 2005

FILE NO/S

:	CIV 3049 of 1991 CIV 3050 of 1991 CIV 2965 of 1990 CIV 2966 of 1990 Consolidated by order dated 5 August 1998

BETWEEN

: GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN

First Plaintiff
W J GREEN & CO (1984) PTY LTD
(ACN 008 851 867)
Second Plaintiff
SHARYN LEE GREEN
GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN
JULIE ANNE GREEN
WILLIAM JOSEPH GREEN
NORMA GLENYCE GREEN
Third Plaintiffs
AND

[2005] WASC 83 (S)

WILDEN PTY LTD (ACN 009 143 033)
First Defendant
MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD
(ACN 009 340 158)
Second Defendant
TACE PTY LTD (ACN 009 204 915)
Third Defendant
SYDNEY JAMES CHESSON
Fourth Defendant
BERT LEONARD DENBOER
Fifth Defendant
CALLAO PTY LTD (ACN 008 867 552)
Sixth Defendant
BENRONE PTY LTD (ACN 008 931 084)
Seventh Defendant
DELTABROOK PTY LTD (ACN 009 462 695)
Eighth Defendant
JOHN MARTIN KELLY
Ninth Defendant
(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
WILDEN PTY LTD (ACN 009 143 033)
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim
MAGENTA NOMINEES PTY LTD
(ACN 009 340 158)
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim
AND

[2005] WASC 83 (S)

GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN
First Defendant by Counterclaim
W J GREEN & CO (1984) PTY LTD
(ACN 008 851 867)
Second Defendant by Counterclaim
SHARYN LEE GREEN
GRAEME WILLIAM GREEN
JULIE ANNE GREEN
WILLIAM JOSEPH GREEN
NORMA GLENYCE GREEN
Third Defendants by Counterclaim
(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Supplementary judgment - Orders and directions providing for various forms of equitable relief - Orders as to costs

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiffs' claim allowed in part
Defendants' counterclaim allowed in part
Final orders made

[2005] WASC 83 (S)

Category: B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff Third Plaintiffs First Defendant	:	Mr D Grace QC & Mr M L Bennett
:	Mr D Grace QC & Mr M L Bennett
:	Mr D Grace QC & Mr M L Bennett
:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Second Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Third Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Sixth Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Seventh Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Eighth Defendant	:	Mr M J McCusker QC &
Mr R H B Pringle QC
Ninth Defendant	:

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 Green v Wilden Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Green v Wilden Pty Ltd [2005] WASC 83 (S)
Case: [2005] WASC 83 (S)
Decision Date: 9 AUGUST 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Green v Wilden Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Green, and the defendant, Wilden Pty Ltd, relating to an alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff claimed that Wilden Pty Ltd had breached a contract concerning the supply of certain goods and sought various forms of equitable relief, including an account of profits and restitution. The defendant denied any wrongdoing and challenged the plaintiff's claims on several grounds, including the enforceability of the contract and the plaintiff's entitlement to the requested remedies.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the validity and enforceability of the contract in question, the existence of a breach of contract by the defendant, the quantification of any damages or profits to which the plaintiff was entitled, and the appropriateness of the equitable reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of unjust enrichment and the applicable rules regarding costs in relation to supplementary judgments and equitable relief.

The court's reasoning in this case was thorough, focusing first on the enforceability of the contract. It found that the contract was valid and binding on both parties. The court then examined the evidence presented regarding the alleged breach of contract and concluded that the defendant had indeed breached the terms of the contract. In terms of equitable relief, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to an account of profits, as well as restitution for the unjust enrichment caused by the defendant's actions. The court also made detailed orders regarding the costs associated with the supplementary judgment and the various forms of equitable relief granted. The final orders included an account of profits, restitution for unjust enrichment, and specific directions regarding the costs to be borne by both parties.

Orders