Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd - [2001] FCA 226

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 226
TRADE PRACTICES – time limitations under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether any time limitation applicable to grant of relief under s 87(1) of Act for contravention of Part IV – jurisdiction to make orders pursuant to s 87(1) – requirement of principal proceeding under or for an offence against Part VI of Act – ancillary relief – time limitations – relationship between s 80 and s 87(1) of Act – relationship between s 82, s 87(1) and s 87(1A) of Act
TRADE PRACTICES – meaning of “person party to a proceeding” under s 87(1) of Act
TRADE PRACTICES – remedies – whether account of profits available under s 87(1) Trade Practices Act – compensatory nature of award under s 87(1) of Act
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – form of separate question
WORDS AND PHRASES – “account of profits”
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Trade Practices Commission v TNT Australia Pty Ltd Ors (1995) ATPR 41-375 referred to
Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-522 referred to
Sent v Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 540 followed
Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1988) ATPR 40-853 referred to
Fenech v Sterling (1984) 57 ALR 98 distinguished
James v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 347 distinguished
Calmao Pty Ltd v Stradbroke Waters Co-owners Co-operative Society Ltd (1989) 21 FCR 28 not followed
Dorfler v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 699 referred to
Peabody Resources Ltd v Macquarie Generation (Einstein J, unreported, 19 November 1998 (BC9806319)) referred to
Tanzone v Westpac Banking Corporation (1999) ATPR 46-195 followed
Gregg v Tasmanian Trustees Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 91 applied
Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (2000) 173 ALR 427 considered
I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 383 considered
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings (1998) 196 CLR 494 applied
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 considered
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281 considered
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 applied
Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio (1988) 58 FCR 274 considered
Telmak Teleproducts (Australia) Pty Ltd v Coles Myer Ltd (1988) 84 ALR 437 referred to
C-Shirt Pty Ltd v Barnett Marketing & Management Pty Ltd (1997) ATPR (Digest) 46-168 referred to
Dart Industries Inc v Décor Corp Pty Ltd (1993) 179 CLR 101 applied
Australian Rugby Union v Hospitality Group (2000) 173 ALR 702 applied
Attorney General v Blake [2000] 3 WLR 625 distinguished
MULTIGROUP DISTRIBUTION SERVICES PTY LIMITED v TNT AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED, MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED and J McPHEE & SON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED
NG 786 OF 1995
GYLES J
SYDNEY
12 MARCH…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 226
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd v TNT Australia Pty Ltd was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around an alleged breach of contract and a claim for damages between the two companies. Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, alleged that TNT Australia Pty Ltd, the defendant, breached their contractual obligations, resulting in financial loss. The case involved a detailed examination of the contractual terms, the nature of the services provided, and the extent of the damages claimed.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether there was a binding contract between the parties, whether there was a breach of that contract, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court needed to interpret the terms of the contract and assess the evidence provided by both parties regarding the performance and non-performance of contractual obligations. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of contract law relevant to the assessment of damages.

In its reasoning, the court noted that there was indeed a binding contract between the parties, and that the defendant had breached certain terms of that contract. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to quantify the damages claimed. As a result, the court was unable to determine the appropriate remedy at that time. The court decided to stand the proceeding over for further orders, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to provide additional evidence to substantiate their claim for damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceeding stand over for further orders.

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

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.