Hannigan v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWSC 641

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hannigan v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 641
Hearing dates: 28 May 2021
Date of orders: 7 June 2021
Decision date: 07 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Application to stay proceedings dismissed

Catchwords:
ESTOPPEL – estoppel by judgment – Anshun estoppel – unreasonableness of conduct – where plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking declaration that contract with defendant not terminated – where Robb J made such a declaration – where plaintiff now brings second proceeding under the same contract seeking damages – whether it was unreasonable for plaintiff not to have brought damages claim in earlier proceedings – whether second proceedings should be stayed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bazos v Doman [2001] NSWCA 347
Boles v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 666
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1995) 57 FCR 287
Champerslife Pty Ltd v Manojlovski (2010) 75 NSWLR 245; [2010] NSWCA 33
Clayton v Bant [2020] HCA 44; (2020) 385 ALR 41
Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (2007) 164 FCR 224; [2007] FCAFC 183
Gibbs v Kinna [1998] VSCA 52; [1999] 2 VR 19
Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 231
Hannigan v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 321
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan [2020] NSWCA 82
Ling v Commonwealth (1996) 68 FCR 180
Macquarie Bank Ltd v National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 543
Mandeville v Better Lending Pty Ltd [2021] SASCA 28
Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips (1974) 131 CLR 286
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28
Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (t/as Database Consultants Australia) [2020] FCA 6; (2020) 149 IPR 370)
Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 146 FCR 10; [2004] FCAFC 242
Zavodnyik v Alex Constructions Pty Ltd (2005) 67 NSWLR 457; [2005] NSWCA 438

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Francis Gregory Hannigan (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M S Henry SC (Plaintiff/Respondent)
P S Braham SC with D Neggo (Defendant/Applicant)
Solicitors:
Hannigans (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Paradise Charnock O’Brien (Defendant/Applicant)

File Number(s): SC 2020/313184

Judgment

The plaintiff, Mr Hannigan, is a chicken grower at a farm near Casino. He is also a solicitor. The defendant, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (“Inghams”), supplies broiler chickens to the market. On 16 October 2016, Mr Hannigan and Inghams entered a “Broiler Chicken Growing Agreement” (“the Contract”) pursuant to which Inghams agreed to supply batches of one day old chickens to Mr Hannigan and Mr Hannigan agreed to raise the chickens for various periods, typically 30 days.
On 8 August 2017, Inghams purported to terminate the Contract. It did so on two bases.…

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 Hannigan v Inghams Enterprises 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: [2021] NSWSC 641
Decision Date: 07 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hannigan v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff, Hannigan, sought a declaration that a contract with the defendant, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd, was not terminated, and later sought damages under the same contract. The court was required to determine whether it was unreasonable for Hannigan not to have pursued a damages claim in the earlier proceedings and if the second proceedings should be stayed based on estoppel by judgment and Anshun estoppel principles. Hannigan had initially brought proceedings seeking a declaration that a contract was not terminated. The matter was heard by Robb J, who made such a declaration. Subsequently, Hannigan initiated a second proceeding seeking damages under the same contract. Inghams Enterprises argued that Hannigan's failure to bring the damages claim in the earlier proceedings was unreasonable and sought to stay the second proceedings based on estoppel by judgment and Anshun estoppel.

The court considered the principles of estoppel by judgment and Anshun estoppel, examining whether Hannigan's conduct was unreasonable in not bringing the damages claim in the earlier proceedings. The court found that it was not unreasonable for Hannigan not to have raised the damages claim earlier, as the focus of the first proceeding was solely on the termination of the contract. The court held that the second proceeding should not be stayed, as the issues in the two proceedings were distinct and the estoppel principles did not apply to prevent Hannigan from pursuing the damages claim. The court's decision emphasised the importance of distinguishing between different causes of action and the circumstances under which Anshun estoppel may apply.

Orders