Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd

Case [2010] QSC 243

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd  [2010] QSC 243

PARTIES:

BRUCE JOSEPH MITCHELL
(plaintiff)
v
PACIFIC DAWN PTY LTD ACN 070 358 280
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 3872 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 – 13 November 2009

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

The question is answered as follows:

On the assumption that the agreement pleaded in paragraph 22 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 23 of the Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim was entered into, it was not arrived at by the application of coercion or duress such as to make it unenforceable as pleaded in paragraphs 18-25 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim, or as a result of misrepresentation as alleged in paragraph 24 thereof or as a result of unconscionable conduct as alleged in paragraph 24A thereof, which paragraphs are defended in paragraphs 19-26 of the Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim, which paragraphs are in turn replied to in paragraphs 23-34 of the Amended Reply and Answer.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – DURESS – where the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a building contract – where a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to settle the contract – where the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement – whether settlement agreement entered into under economic duress – whether settlement agreement unenforceable

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – where the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a building contract – where a dispute arose between the parties as to the amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to settle the contract – where the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement – where the plaintiff was under financial and commercial pressure at the time of entering into the settlement agreement – whether plaintiff was under a special disadvantage – whether defendant knew plaintiff was under a special disadvantage – whether settlement agreement obtained by unconscionable conduct – whether settlement agreement unenforceable

ACCC v C G Berbatis Limited (2003) 214 CLR 51, followed
ANZ Banking Group Limited v Karam (2005) 64 NSWLR 149, applied
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362, cited
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac ltd (1988) 19 NSWLR 40, applied
D. & C. Builders Ltd v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617, distinguished
Denmeade v Stingray Boats [2003] FCAFC 215, followed
Kostopoulos v G E Commerical Finance Australia Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 311, followed
Parkesinclair Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Asia Associates Inc [2000] VSC 362, applied

Westpac Banking Corporation v Cockerill (1998) 152 ALR 267, cited

COUNSEL:

L D Bowden for the plaintiff

R G Bain QC, with P D Tucker, for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shand Taylor Lawyers for the plaintiff

Hogan and Company for the defendant

Introduction

Continue reading Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 243
Case
[2010] QSC 243
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mitchell v Pacific Dawn Pty Ltd, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging that a settlement agreement entered into between the parties was unenforceable due to economic duress and unconscionable conduct. The underlying dispute between the parties was in relation to the amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to settle a building contract. The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement agreement was entered into under duress and whether it was obtained by unconscionable conduct. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff was under a special disadvantage and whether the defendant knew of this disadvantage at the time of the agreement.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, including the nature of the pressure exerted by the defendant on the plaintiff and whether this pressure amounted to economic duress. The court also examined the circumstances of the parties at the time of the agreement and whether the plaintiff was under a special disadvantage. The court found that the agreement was not entered into by the application of coercion or duress, nor was it obtained by misrepresentation or unconscionable conduct. The court held that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff take nothing by the action, and that the defendant recover its costs of the proceedings from the plaintiff on an indemnity basis. The court also made an order for the costs of the proceeding to be paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The question is answered as follows:

On the assumption that the agreement pleaded in paragraph 22 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim and paragraph 23 of the Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim was entered into, it was not arrived at by the application of coercion or duress such as to make it unenforceable as pleaded in paragraphs 18-25 of the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim, or as a result of misrepresentation as alleged in paragraph 24 thereof or as a result of unconscionable conduct as alleged in paragraph 24A thereof, which paragraphs are defended in paragraphs 19-26 of the Fourth Further Amended Defence and Counterclaim, which paragraphs are in turn replied to in paragraphs 23-34 of the Amended Reply and Answer.

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.