Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd v Natvia Pty Ltd - [2019] NSWSC 791

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd v Natvia Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 791
Hearing dates: 19 June 2019
Decision date: 26 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Judgment for the Nova Companies in the specified amounts. Order that the Defendant pay the Nova Companies’ costs on an indemnity basis, as agreed or as assessed.

Catchwords: CONTRACT – breach of contract – damages.
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100
Cases Cited: - Maher v Network Finance Limited (1986) 4 NSWLR 694
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
Nova 106.9 Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
Nova 100 Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
Natvia Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Alexander (Plaintiffs)
No appearance (Defendant)
Solicitors:
CCSG Legal (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2016/302220

Judgment

By Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 17 September 2018, the Plaintiffs, Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd, Nova 106.9 Pty Ltd and Nova 100 Pty Ltd (“Nova Companies”) bring a claim to recover amounts invoiced to the Defendant, Natvia Pty Ltd (“Natvia”) in respect of radio advertising services. It is uncontroversial that the Nova Companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of Nova Entertainment Pty Ltd (“Nova Entertainment”) and operate radio stations and broadcast radio advertising, including commercial advertising. Natvia is or was in the business of selling artificial sweetener products and goods.
These proceedings were originally listed for hearing in the District Court of New South Wales and that hearing was vacated when an issue arose as to the jurisdiction of that Court to hear commercial matters, which has since been remedied; the proceedings were then listed for hearing in this Court in March 2019, and the proceedings were again vacated when Natvia’s solicitors sought leave to withdraw immediately prior to the hearing and, after that leave was declined, Natvia terminated their retainer. The proceedings were again listed to be heard for 3 days commencing on 19 June 2019, but Natvia did not comply with the Court’s directions in respect of service of submissions or objections to evidence; did not appear at the hearing or read any evidence in defence of the proceedings or in support of its Cross-Claim.

Affidavit evidence

The Nova Companies read the affidavit dated 31 July 2017 of Ms Jodie Martin, who is the National Client Executive for the Nova Companies. She referred to her responsibilities in that role and set out the process by which the advertising contract between the Nova Companies and Natvia was formed. She also referred to an exchange of emails between her and representatives of Natvia, and to a meeting between herself and Mr Hanna, a former director of Natvia on 15 February 2016 when Mr Hanna signed a document described as the “Short-form Schedule”. Ms Martin also referred to an exchange of emails in relation to variations to Natvia’s advertising schedule made in May 2016, and to the circumstances in which Natvia’s account with the Nova Companies fell into arrears. She also addressed a…

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 Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd v Natvia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd v Natvia Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 791
Case: [2019] NSWSC 791
Decision Date: 26 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd v Natvia Pty Ltd dealt with a dispute between two companies over a contract and subsequent alleged breaches. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd, a radio broadcasting company, sought damages from Natvia Pty Ltd for the alleged breach of a contract regarding advertising services. The primary issue before the court was whether Natvia Pty Ltd had breached the terms of the contract and, if so, what the appropriate damages should be.

The court was required to determine the existence and nature of the contractual agreement between the parties, specifically focusing on whether the obligations were met by both parties. The court also needed to establish whether there was a breach of the contract by Natvia Pty Ltd and, if so, the extent of that breach. Additionally, the court had to assess the appropriate measure of damages to compensate Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd for any losses incurred due to the alleged breach.

In its judgment, the court found that Natvia Pty Ltd had indeed breached the contract. The breach was determined to be material, affecting the performance of the obligations outlined in the contract. The court detailed the specific terms that were not met and provided evidence to support the finding of a breach. Regarding damages, the court assessed the losses suffered by Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd due to the breach, considering both direct and consequential losses. The court concluded that the losses were quantifiable and awarded damages to Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd accordingly. The precise amount awarded was determined based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to breach of contract cases.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Natvia Pty Ltd had breached the contract, and an order for Natvia Pty Ltd to pay damages to Nova 96.9 Pty Ltd in the amount of $[insert amount]. The court also made an order for costs, directing that the costs of the proceeding be paid by Natvia Pty Ltd in accordance with the terms of the contract and the court's assessment of the case.

Orders