Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2002] QSC 105

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 105

PARTIES:

MULTINAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(plaintiff)
v
PRYDA (AUST) PTY LIMITED
(first defendant)
CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROGERS
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No. S2291 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Tuesday 16 April 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2002 – 8 March 2002

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.   That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,559,237

2.   That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $2,159,237

3.   That the plaintiff’s costs be assessed on the standard basis and be paid by the defendants

CATCHWORDS:

TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – KNOWLEDGE – Where plaintiff had exclusive contract to supply customer – Where defendants sought to take customer away from the plaintiff – Whether defendants had knowledge of contract for exclusive supply

TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS INTENTION – Whether defendants acted with intent to induce the plaintiff’s customer to breach its contract with the plaintiff

TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS INDUCEMENT – Whether breach of contract was induced by the defendant

CORPORATIONS – DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY – Where director authorised and directed the actions of the first defendant – Whether director personally liable for tort of the company

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Whether the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ inducement – Whether the plaintiff’s loss exceeded amount awarded for breach of contract – Damages for loss of profit – Damages for loss of chance

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – Where defendants showed contumelious disregard for rights of the plaintiff – Where substantial compensatory damages awarded – Where defendants sought to eliminate competitor by unlawful conduct

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
Trade Practices Act 1974, s 87, s 52

Independent Oil Industries Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 394, approved
Short v The City Bank of Sydney (1912) SR (NSW) 186, approved
Short v The City Bank of Sydney (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 186, approved
Allstate Life Insurance Company v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1990) 58 FCR 26, approved
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 355, cited
Graham Evans Pty Ltd v Stencraft (1999) FCA 1670, approved
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots & Ors [1991] VR 635, cited
DC Thompson & Co v Deacon [1952] Ch 646, cited
Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158, approved
Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1979] Ch 548, distinguished

British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch 556, cited

Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497, distinguished
O’Brien v Dawson (1942) 66 CLR 18, considered
Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty…

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 Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd 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: [2002] QSC 105
Decision Date: Tuesday 16 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Multinail Australia Pty Ltd and Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Multinail Australia, which held an exclusive contract to supply a particular customer, sought compensation from Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd for inducing the customer to breach their contract. The dispute hinged on whether the defendants were aware of the exclusive supply contract, whether they acted with intent to induce a breach, and if so, whether the plaintiff suffered losses as a result of such inducement.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the defendants had knowledge of the exclusive supply contract with the customer. Secondly, whether the defendants acted with the intent to induce the customer to breach its contract with the plaintiff. Thirdly, whether the breach of contract was indeed induced by the defendants. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the director of the first defendant was personally liable for the company's actions and the appropriate assessment of damages, including whether exemplary damages were warranted due to the defendants' contumelious conduct.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendants were aware of the exclusive supply contract and had acted with the intent to induce the customer to breach it. The inducement was successful, leading to the customer terminating its agreement with the plaintiff. The court further held that the plaintiff had indeed suffered losses as a result of the inducement, which exceeded the amount previously awarded for the breach of contract. The losses included damages for lost profits and lost chance. Regarding the director's personal liability, the court found him liable for the company's actions. Finally, the court awarded substantial compensatory damages, including exemplary damages due to the defendants' disregard for the plaintiff's rights.

The court made specific orders: judgment was awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,559,237 and against the second defendant for $2,159,237. The plaintiff's costs were assessed on the standard basis and ordered to be paid by the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,559,237

2. That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $2,159,237

3. That the plaintiff’s costs be assessed on the standard basis and be paid by the defendants

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.

CITATION:	Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v Pryda (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] QSC 105
PARTIES:	MULTINAIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PRYDA (AUST) PTY LIMITED (first defendant) CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROGERS (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	No. S2291 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial Division
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Tuesday 16 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 February 2002 – 8 March 2002
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,559,237 2. That there be judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $2,159,237 3. That the plaintiff’s costs be assessed on the standard basis and be paid by the defendants
CATCHWORDS:	TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – KNOWLEDGE – Where plaintiff had exclusive contract to supply customer – Where defendants sought to take customer away from the plaintiff – Whether defendants had knowledge of contract for exclusive supply TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS INTENTION – Whether defendants acted with intent to induce the plaintiff’s customer to breach its contract with the plaintiff TORT – INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT – INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS INDUCEMENT – Whether breach of contract was induced by the defendant CORPORATIONS – DIRECTOR’S LIABILITY – Where director authorised and directed the actions of the first defendant – Whether director personally liable for tort of the company DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Whether the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ inducement – Whether the plaintiff’s loss exceeded amount awarded for breach of contract – Damages for loss of profit – Damages for loss of chance DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – Where defendants showed contumelious disregard for rights of the plaintiff – Where substantial compensatory damages awarded – Where defendants sought to eliminate competitor by unlawful conduct Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 Trade Practices Act 1974, s 87, s 52 Independent Oil Industries Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 394, approved Short v The City Bank of Sydney (1912) SR (NSW) 186, approved Short v The City Bank of Sydney (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 186, approved Allstate Life Insurance Company v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1990) 58 FCR 26, approved Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 355, cited Graham Evans Pty Ltd v Stencraft (1999) FCA 1670, approved Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots & Ors [1991] VR 635, cited DC Thompson & Co v Deacon [1952] Ch 646, cited Ritz Hotel Ltd v Charles of the Ritz Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 158, approved Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1979] Ch 548, distinguished British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch 556, cited Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497, distinguished O’Brien v Dawson (1942) 66 CLR 18, considered Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty…