Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Lockwood, a manufacturer of security products, sought to enforce a judgment against Doric, a competitor, for breaches of an agreement concerning the licensing of intellectual property. The primary dispute was over the enforceability of a settlement agreement reached during the litigation, which Lockwood claimed was binding and Doric argued was not.

The central legal issue was whether the settlement agreement, which was not reduced to writing, was enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Lockwood contended that Doric was estopped from denying the terms of the oral agreement, while Doric argued that the agreement was not binding as it had not been formalised in writing. The court also had to consider whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

The court held that the settlement agreement was enforceable. It found that the conduct of the parties, particularly the reliance by Lockwood on the agreement, justified the application of promissory estoppel. The court noted that while the agreement was not in writing, the circumstances surrounding its formation and the conduct of the parties provided sufficient evidence of its terms. The court further held that the agreement was sufficiently certain in its essential terms to be enforceable. Consequently, Lockwood was entitled to enforce the settlement agreement against Doric.

The court ordered that Lockwood recover its costs on a party and party basis, subject to a discount of 15 per cent on the costs of the trial and 20 per cent on the costs of the second Full Court appeal. The costs were to be taxed and paid forthwith.