Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MIRYANA PALMINA SMOJE v TREND LABORATORIES PTY LIMITED (Formerly known as Trend Cosmetics Pty Limited) [1990] NSWCA 168 Decision date: 30 October 1990
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Miryana Palmina Smoje v Trend Laboratories Pty Limited (Formerly known as Trend Cosmetics Pty Limited) [1990] NSWCA 168
- Case
- [1990] NSWCA 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal, Miryana Palmina Smoje was the applicant and Trend Laboratories Pty Limited (formerly Trend Cosmetics Pty Limited) was the respondent. The dispute concerned an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the applicant's claim for damages for breach of contract and for misleading and deceptive conduct. The applicant had alleged that the respondent had failed to pay her a commission on sales of certain cosmetic products.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the single judge had erred in finding that there was no enforceable agreement for the payment of commission, and consequently, whether the applicant had established a claim for damages. This involved a determination of whether the parties had reached a concluded agreement regarding the commission, and if so, the terms of that agreement. A further issue was whether the respondent's conduct in relation to the alleged commission agreement constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the relevant legislation.
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the single judge had correctly concluded that no concluded agreement for the payment of commission had been reached. The evidence did not establish a mutual intention to be legally bound to pay a specific commission. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent's conduct was misleading or deceptive. The applicant's claims were therefore without merit.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the single judge had erred in finding that there was no enforceable agreement for the payment of commission, and consequently, whether the applicant had established a claim for damages. This involved a determination of whether the parties had reached a concluded agreement regarding the commission, and if so, the terms of that agreement. A further issue was whether the respondent's conduct in relation to the alleged commission agreement constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the relevant legislation.
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the single judge had correctly concluded that no concluded agreement for the payment of commission had been reached. The evidence did not establish a mutual intention to be legally bound to pay a specific commission. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent's conduct was misleading or deceptive. The applicant's claims were therefore without merit.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.