IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King and Taylor Pty Ltd Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 2068 of 2001

IGA DISTRIBUTION PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
KING & TAYLOR PTY LTD	First Defendant
DELAHEY PROPERTIES PTY LTD	Second Defendant

---
RULING NO. 3

JUDGE:	Nettle J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9 September 2002
DATE OF RULING:	9 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King & Taylor Pty Ltd and anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 401

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R.M. Garratt QC with Mr M.K. Moshinsky	Cornwall Stodart
For the First Defendant	Mr J.D. Hammond QC with Ms J.E. Richards	Richard Szental
For the Second Defendant	Mr P.J. Hayes with Ms L. Hannon	Efron & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

A question has been asked of the witness concerning a document which is at Court Book pp. 464, 464A and 465, to the effect of whether, if he had known that Ms Zusman had received that letter on or about the date that it bears and read its contents, he would have instructed Ms Zusman to complete an estimate of rental, along the lines of that which is contained at p. 465, and sent it to Mr Szental.

Objection is taken to the question on the grounds that it is irrelevant.

Mr Hammond seeks to justify the question on the basis that thus far Mr Carlisle has demonstrated that his motivation in insisting upon an indemnity in respect of any stamp duty penalties was his belief that blame for the delay lay upon Mr Szental or at least upon the clients whom he represented.

In my opinion, whatever might have been the motive of Mr Carlisle in insisting upon an indemnity, if indeed he did so, it is irrelevant to the question of whether the actions of IGA (insofar as it might be said that they asked for an indemnity) evinced an intention not to be bound by the contract.

In my opinion, the significance of their actions is to be judged objectively without regard to subjective motivation.

For those reasons, I will uphold the objection.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, IGA Distribution Pty Ltd brought an action against King & Taylor Pty Ltd and De Lahey Properties Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on a contract for the sale of property and the obligations of the parties under that contract. The court was asked to determine whether IGA Distribution Pty Ltd had demonstrated an intention not to be bound by the contract when it sought an indemnity for stamp duty penalties. The case was heard by Justice Nettle and was determined on 9 September 2002. The ruling was recorded as IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King & Taylor Pty Ltd and anor [2002] VSC 401.

The central legal issue was whether IGA Distribution Pty Ltd, by seeking an indemnity for stamp duty penalties, had demonstrated an intention not to be bound by the terms of the contract. The court had to examine the actions of IGA Distribution Pty Ltd objectively, without regard to the subjective motivations of the individuals involved. The court needed to determine if the request for an indemnity constituted an intention not to be bound by the contract, or if it could be considered a legitimate contractual obligation.

Justice Nettle ruled that the request for an indemnity, regardless of the subjective motivations behind it, did not demonstrate an intention not to be bound by the contract. The court held that the actions of IGA Distribution Pty Ltd should be judged objectively and that the significance of their actions was to be determined without regard to the subjective motivations of the individuals involved. The court upheld the objection to the question regarding the witness's knowledge of the receipt of a particular letter, finding it irrelevant to the issue of whether IGA Distribution Pty Ltd had demonstrated an intention not to be bound by the contract.

The court's decision was that IGA Distribution Pty Ltd had not demonstrated an intention not to be bound by the contract by seeking an indemnity for stamp duty penalties. The court's ruling was that the actions of IGA Distribution Pty Ltd were to be judged objectively, without regard to the subjective motivations of the individuals involved. The court found the objection to the question regarding the witness's knowledge of the receipt of the letter to be valid, as it was irrelevant to the issue at hand.

IGA Distribution Pty Ltd v King and Taylor Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established