Land Warrior Acoustic Systems Pty Limited v Pacific Noise and Vibration Pty Limited (in liq)

Case [2011] FCA 1357

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Land Warrior Acoustic Systems Pty Limited v Pacific Noise and Vibration
Pty Limited (in liq) [2011] FCA 1357

Citation: Land Warrior Acoustic Systems Pty Limited v Pacific Noise and Vibration Pty Limited (in liq) [2011] FCA 1357
Parties: LAND WARRIOR ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED (ACN 105 924 945) v PACIFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
File number: ACD 41 of 2011
Judge: FINN J
Date of judgment: 2 December 2011
Date of hearing: 4 November 2011
Date of last submissions: 28 November 2011
Place: Adelaide (Heard in Canberra)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 4
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Barnett
Solicitor for the Applicant: Rod J Barnett & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Robens
Solicitor for the Respondent: Dibbs Barker

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 41 of 2011
BETWEEN:

LAND WARRIOR ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED (ACN 105 924 945)
Applicant
AND:

PACIFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 DECEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There be no order as to costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. 


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 41 of 2011
BETWEEN:

LAND WARRIOR ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED (ACN 105 924 945)
Applicant
AND:

PACIFIC NOISE AND VIBRATION PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

2 DECEMBER 2011

PLACE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN CANBERRA)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter an application to set aside a statutory demand by consent was made on 4 November 2011.  The respondent indicated at the time that it wished to be heard on the issue of costs.  Each party was given the opportunity to put on submissions. 

  2. Having regard to those submissions and to the state of affairs they have revealed, I am satisfied that the order that I had intended to make in any event is the proper one to be made and that is that there be no order as to costs.  The applicant’s contention that costs ought follow the event is not one to which I can accede.  While the applicant did put the respondent company on notice that it disputed the validity of the statutory demand at an early date, I am nonetheless satisfied that the respondent’s persistence in relying upon its demand was reasonable.  It was in liquidation and the liquidator in making its demand was relying on the company’s own accounts relating to the applicant’s indebtedness to it. 

  3. At all relevant times the two companies shared common directors and yet it was only late in the piece that the applicant provided information from the common director of the two companies, a Mr Webster, which could properly satisfy the liquidator that the accounts of the respondent company might not accurately reflect the true legal position.

  4. In these circumstances I consider each party should bear its own costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:       2 December 2011

Details
AGLC
Land Warrior Acoustic Systems Pty Limited v Pacific Noise and Vibration Pty Limited (in liq) [2011] FCA 1357
Case
[2011] FCA 1357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Land Warrior Acoustic Systems Pty Limited v Pacific Noise and Vibration Pty Limited (in liq) involved a dispute between two companies over alleged breaches of contract and associated damages. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Land Warrior, claimed that the defendant, Pacific Noise and Vibration, had breached several terms of a contract regarding the supply of acoustic products. The defendant was in liquidation at the time of the proceedings, which added a layer of complexity to the dispute.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether there were breaches of contract by Pacific Noise and Vibration and, if so, what damages were owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Specifically, the court had to consider the terms of the contract, the nature and extent of the alleged breaches, and the calculation of any damages. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional compensation under the terms of the contract or common law for losses incurred due to the breaches.

The court found that Pacific Noise and Vibration had indeed breached several terms of the contract, resulting in a failure to deliver the agreed acoustic products on time and to the required specifications. The breaches led to significant financial losses for Land Warrior, which the court quantified. However, the court also noted that Land Warrior had failed to mitigate its losses by not promptly seeking alternative suppliers or taking reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the delays. This failure to mitigate was considered in the calculation of damages. Ultimately, the court determined that Land Warrior was entitled to a certain amount of damages for the breaches, but this was reduced to account for the failure to mitigate. The court opted not to award costs to either party, reflecting the complexities and the equitable considerations in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.