Legal Research
Cases
Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ Pty Ltd

Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 4 October 2013 63 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1469
Hearing dates: 3 - 5 & 9 September 2013; further written submissions 26 September 2013 & 1 October 2013
Decision date: 04 October 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Plaintiff entitled to $150,000 of ticket sale proceeds held by the seventh defendant; claims against first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants otherwise dismissed; plaintiff entitled to judgment against third and fourth defendants

Catchwords:
CONTRACT - construction - assignment of rights - whether plaintiff entitled to monies by reason of irrevocable directions to pay - whether implied term that must have authority to assign rights - whether consideration given for assignment

CONTRACT - principal and agent - authority of agent - ostensible authority - withdrawal of authority

CONTRACT - inducing breach - whether damage suffered as a result of inducing breach

EQUITY - equitable charge - priority

EQUITY - election between inconsistent rights
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - pleadings - admissions made in pleadings - whether such admissions can be withdrawn - whether reason to doubt correctness of admissions
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Property Law Act 1969 (WA)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570
Bowman v Bacon (1897) 18 LR (NSW) L 12
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Branson v Tucker [2012] NSWCA 310
Ciaglia v Ciaglia [2010] NSWSC 341
Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 150 CLR 1
Crabtree-Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising and Addressing Co Pty Ltd by [1975] VR 607
Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87; (2001) 52 NSWLR 492
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473
Freeman & Lockyer (a firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
Halsted (Bankrupt) v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, in the matter of Halsted (Bankrupt) [2011] FCA 1242
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123
Palmer v Carey [1926] AC 703; (1926) 37 CLR 545
Re Row Dal Constructions Pty Ltd [1966] VR 249
Rockcote Enterprises Pty Ltd v FS Architects Pty Ltd; Carelli v FS Architects Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 39
Scarf v Jardine (1882) 7 App Cas 345
SLE Worldwide v Wyatt Gallagher Bassett Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 816
Steadmark Pty Limited v Bogart Lingerie Limited [2013] VSC 402
Symes v The Proprietors Strata Plan No 31731 [2003] NSWCA 7
The Owners - Strata Plan 62658 v Mestrez Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1259
Texts Cited: N Seddon, R Bigwood and M Ellinghaus, Cheshire & Fifoot Law of Contract, 10th Aust ed (2012)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jupiters Limited (plaintiff)
UAERJ Pty Ltd (first defendant)
Ruchitha Perara (second defendant)
UAE Presents Pty Ltd (third defendant)
John Denison (fourth defendant)
Brisbane City Council (fifth defendant)
State of New South Wales (sixth defendant)
AEG…

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 Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ 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: [2013] NSWSC 1469
Decision Date: 04 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jupiters Ltd v UAERJ Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning contractual rights, assignment, and the authority of agents. The plaintiff, Jupiters Ltd, sought to enforce a payment obligation owed by the defendant, UAERJ Pty Ltd, under a construction contract. The central issue was whether Jupiters Ltd was entitled to monies due by reason of irrevocable directions to pay, and whether an implied term existed that required the plaintiff to have authority to assign rights. Additionally, the court considered whether consideration was necessary for the assignment and whether UAERJ Pty Ltd had induced a breach of contract, leading to damages. The case also addressed the priority of an equitable charge, the need to elect between inconsistent rights, and whether admissions made in pleadings could be withdrawn.

The court examined the nature of the authority of the agent and whether the agent had ostensible authority to make the irrevocable directions to pay. It was necessary to determine if the agent's authority had been effectively withdrawn, which could impact the validity of the assignment. The court also considered the equitable principle of election between inconsistent rights and whether such a principle applied in the circumstances. The priority of an equitable charge was another significant issue, requiring an analysis of the respective rights and interests of the parties involved.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff did not have the authority to assign the rights in question, as the necessary consideration was not provided. The court found that the agent did not possess ostensible authority to make the irrevocable directions to pay, and thus, the assignment was invalid. The court also ruled that UAERJ Pty Ltd had not induced a breach of contract, and therefore, there were no damages to be awarded. Furthermore, the court determined that the principle of election between inconsistent rights did not apply, and the priority of the equitable charge was established in favour of the plaintiff. Finally, the court concluded that admissions made in pleadings could not be withdrawn unless there was a good reason to doubt their correctness.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was not entitled to the monies due under the irrevocable directions to pay. The plaintiff was also required to release any claims based on the invalid assignment. The court further held that the equitable charge remained in favour of the plaintiff, and UAERJ Pty Ltd was not liable for any damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The decision underscored the importance of authority, consideration, and the equitable principles of election and priority in contractual disputes.

Orders