Mourched v Michaelis Bayley (Aust) Pty Limited

The case of Mourched v Michaelis Bayley (Aust) Pty Limited involves a dispute between a supplier of pharmacy goods and the new owner of a pharmacy, who had ordered goods prior to the sale's completion. The supplier sought payment for these goods from the new owner, who argued that the orders were made without their involvement. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the new owner was liable for the goods ordered by the pharmacy prior to the sale's completion.

The court considered whether the new owner had instigated or authorised the orders placed by the pharmacy before the sale was finalised. The trial judge found that the new owner had indeed instigated the orders, leading to the new owner being held liable for the cost of the goods. However, on appeal, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings. The court held that the new owner could not be held liable for the goods ordered before the sale's completion without clear evidence that they had instigated or authorised the orders.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the trial judge was set aside. The court found that the supplier's claim for payment from the new owner was not supported by sufficient evidence, and the new owner was not liable for the goods ordered before the sale's completion. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing clear evidence when seeking to hold a party liable for actions taken by another party, particularly in the context of a sale of business where liability for pre-completion transactions can be complex.