21 March 2017 – 23 March 2017, 11 May 2017 – 12 May 2017, 22 June 2017
Date of orders:
03 August 2017
Decision date:
03 August 2017
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff on the Statement of Claim; (2) The parties are to bring in short minutes of order within 7 days reflecting these reasons in relation to the amount of the claim of the plaintiff and interest; (3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Statement of Claim as agreed or assessed; (4) The Second Cross-Claim is dismissed. Judgment for the cross-defendant on the Second Cross-Claim; (5) The cross-claimant is to pay the costs of Mr Lee of the second cross-claim as agreed or assessed; (6) Liberty to the parties to apply on two business days’ notice for different orders to those in (3) and (5) above; (7) Exhibits to be returned after 28 days.
Catchwords:
Contract – identity of contracting party – agency - whether disclosed principal - whether variation of contract agreed – whether estoppel established
Torts – inducing breach of contract – intentional interference with contractual relations – injurious falsehood
Company law – whether conduct of unauthorized third parties to enter contract purportedly on behalf of company ratified
Damages – whether assumptions for expert valuation report established – effect of failure to establish assumptions - loss of a chance in relation to a commercial contract – assessment of the value of the loss of a chance
[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 Lee v Kwak
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lee v Kwak [2017] NSWDC 202
Case
[2017] NSWDC 202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Lee v Kwak, the plaintiff sought damages against the defendant for losses resulting from the defendant’s actions in misrepresenting the identity of a party to a commercial contract and inducing the plaintiff to breach that contract. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Lee, claimed that the defendant, Kwak, had acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal, induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract under false pretenses, and then breached that contract, causing the plaintiff financial loss. The defendant denied the allegations and counterclaimed for damages for defamation and malicious falsehood.
The court had to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, whether Kwak had acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal and whether this was disclosed to the plaintiff. Secondly, whether there was any agreement to vary the terms of the original contract. Thirdly, whether an estoppel was established against the defendant. The court also had to assess whether the defendant had intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relations and made injurious falsehoods. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the company, which Kwak purported to represent, had ratified the actions of Kwak. Finally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiff’s losses.
The court found that Kwak had indeed acted as an agent for an undisclosed principal, but this was not disclosed to the plaintiff. The court held that there was no agreement to vary the terms of the contract. The court also determined that an estoppel was established against the defendant, barring him from denying his agency. The court found that the defendant had intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relations and made injurious falsehoods. The court held that the company had not ratified Kwak's actions. The court assessed the plaintiff’s loss of a chance in relation to the commercial contract and determined the value of this loss. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs and that the exhibits be returned after 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff on the Statement of Claim;
(2) The parties are to bring in short minutes of order within 7 days reflecting these reasons in relation to the amount of the claim of the plaintiff and interest;
(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Statement of Claim as agreed or assessed;
(4) The Second Cross-Claim is dismissed. Judgment for the cross-defendant on the Second Cross-Claim;
(5) The cross-claimant is to pay the costs of Mr Lee of the second cross-claim as agreed or assessed;
(6) Liberty to the parties to apply on two business days’ notice for different orders to those in (3) and (5) above;