Mackay Sugar Ltd v Quadrio

Case [2015] QCA 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mackay Sugar Ltd & Anor v Quadrio [2015] QCA 41

PARTIES:

MACKAY SUGAR LIMITED
ACN 057 463 671
(first appellant)
TABLELAND CANEGROWERS LIMITED
ACN 114 759 365
(second appellant)
v
PASQUALE QUADRIO
(respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 6990 of 2014
SC No 123 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2015

JUDGES:

Carmody CJ and Fraser and Philippides JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal allowed.  Set aside order 1 made in the Trial Division on 3 July 2014, and instead order that the respondent’s application be dismissed.

2.  Unless within fourteen (14) days of today either party files and serves a written submission about costs, upon the expiry of that period the respondent is ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal.

3.  Any such submission about costs must not exceed two A4 pages unless otherwise ordered by the Court, judge of appeal or registrar.

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – PURPOSIVE APPROACH – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld) required the respondent sign a written supply contract – where the contract was projected onto a screen and only the execution page was printed – where the respondent signed the execution page – where the execution page contained no contractual terms – where the purpose of the relevant provisions of the Act was to provide growers with greater contractual autonomy – whether the respondent signed a written contract for the purposes of the Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld)

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – GENERAL OFFERS AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE – where the respondent was presented with a non-negotiable contract – where the appellant would only be bound if a specified level of other commitments were obtained – where the respondent was not provided with a printed copy of the contractual terms – whether the respondent manifested an intention to be legally bound to the terms of that contract when signing the execution page

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 36(1), Schedule 1
Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld), s 29, s 31(1), s 31(5), s 33(1), s 33(2)
Sugar Industry Reform Act 2004 (Qld)

Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees’ Union (NSW) (1908) 6 CLR 469; [1908] HCA 94, cited
Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338; [1983] HCA 18, cited
Cooper & Sons v Neilson and Maxwell Ltd [1919] VLR 66; [1919] VicLawRp 9, cited
Elias v George Sahely & Co (Barbados) [1983] 1 AC 646, cited
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR471; [2004] HCA 55, cited
Harvey v Edwards, Dunlop & Co Ltd (1927) 39 CLR 302; [1927] HCA 13

Continue reading Mackay Sugar Ltd v Quadrio

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mackay Sugar Ltd v Quadrio [2015] QCA 41
Case
[2015] QCA 41
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mackay Sugar Limited brought an appeal against a decision of the Trial Division which found that Quadrio had signed a supply contract with the company. The appeal was concerned with whether a contract was formed when Quadrio signed the execution page of the contract, which was printed and signed but did not contain any of the contractual terms. The contract was displayed on a screen but only the execution page was printed out and signed by Quadrio. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondent had signed a written contract, as required by the Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld). In particular, the Court had to decide whether the purpose of the statutory provisions was to provide growers with greater contractual autonomy, and whether the respondent manifested an intention to be legally bound by the terms of the contract.

The Court found that the purpose of the statutory provisions was to give growers greater contractual autonomy. However, the Court held that the respondent did not sign a written contract for the purposes of the Act because the execution page did not contain any of the contractual terms. The Court also held that there was no evidence that the respondent manifested an intention to be legally bound by the terms of the contract when signing the execution page. The Court concluded that the respondent had not signed a written contract, and therefore the respondent’s application should be dismissed.

The appeal was allowed, and the order made by the Trial Division was set aside. Instead, the Court ordered that the respondent’s application be dismissed. Unless either party filed and served a written submission about costs within fourteen days, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal. Any submission about costs was to be no longer than two A4 pages, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed. Set aside order 1 made in the Trial Division on 3 July 2014, and instead order that the respondent’s application be dismissed.

2. Unless within fourteen (14) days of today either party files and serves a written submission about costs, upon the expiry of that period the respondent is ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the proceedings in the Trial Division and of the appeal.

3. Any such submission about costs must not exceed two A4 pages unless otherwise ordered by the Court, judge of appeal or registrar.

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.