Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd v Nguyen - [2002] QSC 432

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2002] QSC 432

PARTIES:

IDEA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PTY LTD
(ACN 080 911 931)
(plaintiff)
v
YEN KIM NGUYEN
(defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 10102 of 1998

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11-21 June 2002, 5 August 2002

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $224,772.84

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – DISCHARGE BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – OTHER MATTERS – where plaintiff company employed defendant as manager – where defendant misappropriated money belonging to plaintiff company – where defendant claimed she was authorised and entitled to take money – whether defendant liable for breach of contract – whether quantum of damages properly assessed

MONEY – PAYMENT – OTHER CASES – where defendant manager misappropriated money from plaintiff company – whether defendant liable to reimburse funds as money had and received – whether quantum properly assessed

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 92

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, followed
Sharples v O’Shea and Hanson [2000] QCA 23, Appeal No 7592 of 1999, 10 March 2000, followed

COUNSEL:

K S Howe for the plaintiff

P B O’Neill for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

H Drakos & Company for the plaintiff
Lees Marshall Warnick for the defendant

The question to be determined in this case is whether or not the defendant, Yen Kim Nguyen, misappropriated money which belonged to the plaintiff, Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd (“Idea Technology”), and, if so, how much money was so misappropriated. If money was misappropriated then the plaintiff claims that money as damages for breach of contract or as money had and received by the defendant for the use and benefit of the plaintiff. The determination of this question involves a detailed examination of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and in particular the defendant’s actions during the year 1998. This date is significant as the plaintiff commenced trading from 1 January 1998.

Background Facts

It is necessary to examine briefly the relationship between the parties prior to 1 January 1998. Prior to the commencement of trading by Idea Technology, a company known as KT Technology was involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of computer equipment. KT Technology was a worldwide group of companies. The head purchasing office was in Singapore and the manufacturing division was in Malaysia. One of the directors of KT Technology was Cheng Tham Lok who used the anglicized names Ezekiel Lok and Albert Lok. He was generally known in the computer industry in Australia as Albert Lok. Like most of the witnesses in this case, English was not his first language and he gave evidence through an interpreter. One of Mr Lok’s brothers was the head of KT Technology worldwide.

KT Technology (Aust) Pty Ltd (“KT Technology”) was an Australian company with headquarters in Melbourne. It subsequently opened an office in Sydney. In 1996, Mr Lok’s…

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 Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd v Nguyen

Details

AGLC: Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2002] QSC 432
Case: [2002] QSC 432
Decision Date: 19 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd versus Nguyen, the Federal Circuit Court was tasked with addressing allegations of misappropriation of funds by the defendant, who was employed by the plaintiff as a manager. The plaintiff sought to recover the misappropriated funds and damages for breach of contract. The defendant argued that she was authorised to take the money and therefore was not liable for any breach. The central legal issues involved determining whether the defendant was indeed authorised to misappropriate the funds and, if not, whether the damages assessed were appropriate.

The court examined the terms of the employment contract and the evidence presented regarding the defendant's authorisation. It found that the defendant was not authorised to take the money and therefore breached her contractual duties. The court also scrutinised the method by which the damages were calculated, ensuring that the assessment was fair and based on the actual losses incurred by the plaintiff. The court concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and reflective of the harm caused.

In light of the findings, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to reimburse the misappropriated funds. The total amount of $224,772.84 was awarded to the plaintiff as compensation for the breach of contract and the misappropriation of funds. This sum represented the full extent of the loss suffered by the plaintiff, taking into account the evidence and arguments presented by both parties during the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $224,772.84

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.

CITATION:	Idea Technology Services Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2002] QSC 432
PARTIES:	IDEA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 080 911 931) (plaintiff) v YEN KIM NGUYEN (defendant)
FILE NO:	SC No 10102 of 1998
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11-21 June 2002, 5 August 2002
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $224,772.84
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – DISCHARGE BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – OTHER MATTERS – where plaintiff company employed defendant as manager – where defendant misappropriated money belonging to plaintiff company – where defendant claimed she was authorised and entitled to take money – whether defendant liable for breach of contract – whether quantum of damages properly assessed MONEY – PAYMENT – OTHER CASES – where defendant manager misappropriated money from plaintiff company – whether defendant liable to reimburse funds as money had and received – whether quantum properly assessed Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 92 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, followed Sharples v O’Shea and Hanson [2000] QCA 23, Appeal No 7592 of 1999, 10 March 2000, followed
COUNSEL:	K S Howe for the plaintiff P B O’Neill for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	H Drakos & Company for the plaintiff Lees Marshall Warnick for the defendant