Hipost Pty Ltd v Bidalam Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 78 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hipost Pty Ltd & Ors v Bidalam Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] NSWDC 230
Hearing dates:27–30 April, 1, 4, 5, 6 and 22 May 2015; Plaintiff’s written submissions 18 May and 16 June 2015; Fifth Defendant’s written submissions 18, 21 May and 1 June 2015
Date of orders: 12 October 2015
Decision date: 12 October 2015
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

Verdict for the Fifth Defendant

Catchwords:

TORTS – interfering with contractual relations – procuring or inducing breach of contract – “knowledge” and “intention” of conduct constituting breach of contract – wilful blindness and reckless indifference

 

EQUITY – breach of fiduciary duty – Barnes v Addy general principles – knowingly assisting breach of fiduciary duty – knowingly profiting from breach of fiduciary duty

 

CONTRACTS – restraint of trade – assessment of the reasonableness of a restraint – the distinction between non-dealing and non-solicitation restraints

 

EVIDENCE – inferential fact-finding – circumstantial evidence – balance of probabilities

  OTHER – damages – prohibition against double recovery
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Part IV s 34
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 95
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 97,98 and 136
Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) s 4
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 15.4, 31.24 and 31.26
Cases Cited: Allstate Life Insurance v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 26
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Barrett v Ecco Personnel Pty Ltd [1998] NSWCA 30
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd [2000] 48 NSWLR 522
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 635
Birdanco Nominees Pty Ltd v Money (2012) 36 VR 341
Bridge v Deacons [1984] AC 705
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Brown v Cunich (1994) ATPR 46-117
Carlton v United Breweries Ltd v Tooth & Co Ltd (19860 7 IPR 581
Civic Video Pty Ltd v Paterson [2014] WASC 321
Cubillo v Commonwealth (2000) 103 FCR
DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin [1952] Ch 646
Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v Ship Go Star (2012) 207 FCR 220
Diver v Loktronic Industries Limited [2012] 2 NZLR 388
Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) NSWCA 323
Hampton Court v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Limited [2011] NSWCA 267
Hasler v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2014] 87 NSWLR 609
Independent Oil Industries Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 394
Jaddcall v Minson (No 3) [2011] WASC 362
Jameson v Central Electricity Generating Board (2000) 1 AC 455
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
LED Technologies Pty Ltd v Road Vision Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 3
Manly Council v Byrne [2004] NSWCA 123
McCrohon v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67
Michael Wilson & Partners v Slater [2014] FCCA 2871
Miles v Genesys Wealth Advisors Ltd [2009] NSWCA 25
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hipost Pty Ltd v Bidalam 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
[2015] NSWDC 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Hipost Pty Ltd and Bidalam Pty Ltd, and the dispute centred on allegations of interfering with contractual relations, procuring or inducing breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, restraint of trade, and damages. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had interfered with contractual relations by procuring or inducing a breach of contract, whether they had breached a fiduciary duty, whether a restraint of trade clause was reasonable, and the appropriate damages if any were owed.

The primary legal issues involved the meaning of “knowledge” and “intention” in the context of procuring or inducing a breach of contract, whether wilful blindness and reckless indifference could substitute for actual knowledge, and the principles of equity regarding knowingly assisting and profiting from a breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, the court had to assess the reasonableness of a restraint of trade clause and determine the correct approach to damages to avoid double recovery. The court considered these issues in light of the evidence presented, including circumstantial evidence and the balance of probabilities.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant had indeed interfered with contractual relations by procuring or inducing a breach of contract. The defendant was held to have acted with wilful blindness and reckless indifference, which was sufficient to attribute the necessary “knowledge” and “intention.” The court also found that the defendant had breached fiduciary duties by knowingly assisting and profiting from the breach. Regarding the restraint of trade, the court held that the restraint was reasonable in the circumstances, distinguishing between non-dealing and non-solicitation restraints. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages, but it imposed a prohibition on double recovery.

The court’s final order was a verdict in favour of the fifth defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the Fifth Defendant

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.