Metroll SA Pty Ltd v Powerpark Systems Pty Ltd

In this case, Metroll SA Pty Ltd sought to recover monies owed for goods they alleged they supplied to Powerpark Systems Pty Ltd, as well as a guarantee given by the second defendant, a director of the first defendant company. The dispute centred on whether the second defendant was liable under the guarantee for the goods that Metroll claimed were ordered on behalf of Powerpark. The court was also required to determine the identity of the contracting parties and the nature of any authority held by the alleged agent who ordered the goods.

The court considered whether the alleged agent had actual or ostensible authority to order the goods on behalf of Powerpark. Furthermore, it examined whether the second defendant, as the sole director and secretary of Powerpark, held out the agent as having the authority to order goods. The court concluded that the agent did not have actual authority to order the goods on behalf of Powerpark, either expressly or impliedly. However, the court found that the second defendant held out the agent as having authority, thus granting ostensible authority. Consequently, the second defendant was liable under the guarantee for the goods ordered by the agent.

Metroll was granted judgment against the second defendant for the amount owed for the goods, as well as interest and costs. The court ordered that the parties should attempt to agree on an appropriate costs order. If they could not reach an agreement, they were granted liberty to approach the Associate to Dicker DCJ to relist the matter for argument as to costs. Additionally, if the parties could not agree on the Short Minutes of Order, they were also granted liberty to approach the Associate to Dicker DCJ to relist the matter for relisting on three business days’ notice.