Legal Research
Cases
Network Limited v Speck

Network Limited v Speck

Case [2009] VSC 235 17 June 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

No. 2039 of 2006

NETWORK LIMITED (ACN 091 780 924)	Plaintiff
and
LYNTON AINSLEY SPECK & ORS (according to the schedule attached)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	PAGONE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 – 7, 11 – 14, 18 – 20 May 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Network Limited v Speck & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 235

---

CONTRACT – Duty of good faith – Whether term providing for notice of termination wholly for benefit of plaintiff or for all parties – Whether notice of termination served in good faith or for a collateral purpose.

EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – Relevance of witness’ specialised knowledge to the facts.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Rodbard-Bean with Mr O Bigos	Thomson Playford Cutlers
For the Defendant	Mr P Corbett	Hall & Wilcox

---

HIS HONOUR:

The main dispute in this appeal is about whether it is the plaintiff (“Network”[1]) or the defendants who are entitled to an amount of $250,000 which had been paid by Network to the defendants as a deposit under an agreement for the potential purchase of a business and assets.
[1]The plaintiff has changed its name to OoH! Media Group Limited but it will be more convenient for me to refer to it in these reasons as Network.

On 1 November 2005 the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement styled a “Memorandum of Understanding” (“the MOU”). Clause 4.1 of the MOU provided that the parties were in good faith to use their best endeavours to negotiate and enter into certain agreements giving effect to the intent and substance of the transactions defined in clause 1.27 and described in a schedule to the MOU. That obligation was subject to clause 5 which provided for the undertaking of final due diligence. Clause 4.2 of the MOU (also subject to clause 5) provided for the payment of a deposit of $250,000 (“the MOU deposit”) which was to be applied towards any subsequent deposit which may have been payable under acquisition agreements, if entered into, but was otherwise to be dealt with as provided for by the MOU. Network paid the MOU deposit but maintains that it is entitled pursuant to the terms of the MOU to have it returned. In contrast, the defendants deny Network’s entitlement to the repayment of the MOU deposit and by counterclaim seek declarations that they are entitled to retain the MOU deposit pursuant to the terms of the MOU maintaining that Network forfeited any right or entitlement to repayment of the MOU deposit.

Network’s claim to a repayment of the MOU deposit is based upon clause 6.5. That clause provides that “the sellers”[2] were obliged to repay the deposit to Network immediately after “expiry or termination” of the MOU. That obligation was, however, conditional upon one of two circumstances. The first, not relevant to this proceeding, was…

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.

Continue reading Network Limited v Speck

Details

AGLC: Network Limited v Speck [2009] VSC 235
Case: [2009] VSC 235
Decision Date: 17 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Network Limited v Speck is a case involving a dispute between Network Limited and Speck, concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a termination clause in a contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether a clause in the contract that allowed for termination upon notice was intended to be for the benefit of one party only or for all parties involved. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the notice of termination was given in good faith or if it was intended to achieve a collateral purpose.

The court examined the language of the contract to ascertain the intent behind the termination clause. It considered whether the clause was designed to provide a unilateral benefit to Network Limited or if it was intended to be a mutual right for both parties. The court also evaluated the circumstances surrounding the notice of termination to determine if it was issued in good faith or if it served an ulterior motive. In assessing the evidence, particular attention was given to the expertise of the witness who provided opinion on the contractual obligations and the relevance of their specialised knowledge to the specific facts of the case.

The Supreme Court found that the termination clause was intended to be a mutual right and that the notice of termination was not given in good faith. The court concluded that the notice was used to achieve a collateral purpose, which was to facilitate a sale of the business to a third party. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Speck, finding that Network Limited had breached the duty of good faith by issuing the notice for an improper purpose. The court did not grant the relief sought by Network Limited and instead directed further proceedings in line with its findings.

Orders