Nutrien AG Solutions Ltd v Pingrup Traders Pty Ltd - [2022] WASC 251

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS LTD -v- PINGRUP TRADERS PTY LTD [2022] WASC 251
CORAM:   FORRESTER J
HEARD:   3 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   3 AUGUST 2022
PUBLISHED           :   5 AUGUST 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1725 of 2022
BETWEEN:   NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS LTD
Plaintiff
AND
PINGRUP TRADERS PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Injunctions - Interlocutory - Agent's lien - Whether serious question to be tried - Balance of convenience

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr C M Slater
Respondent	:	Mr T M Retallack

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Respondent	:	Lawfield Legal Practice

Cases referred to in decision:

Active Property Marketing Services (Aust) Pty Ltd t/as Alpha Realty v Joelco Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 167
Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings Pty Limited [2005] HCA 46; (2005) 223 CLR 660
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) CLR 380
Crayshaw v Homfray (1820) 4 B & Ald 50
De Rucci International Pty Ltd v Zhu & Ors [2020] NSWSC 374
Fisher v Smith (1878) 4 App Cas 1
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 10; (2003) 56 NSWLR 298
Hill v Venning (1979) 4 ACLR 555,
Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] UKSC 13; [2014] AC 822
Mineralogy v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 105
Proctor v Bayley (1889) 42 Ch D 390
Re Clune; Ex parte verge v Isabella Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) (1988) 14 ACLR 261
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy [No.2] [2017] WASCA 76
Twinside Pty Ltd v Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 110

FORRESTER J:

Background

On 13 July 2022, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant by filing a writ indorsed with a claim seeking:
An injunction to restrain the Defendant from dealing with certain of the Plaintiff's products (Products) presently located at 8 Sanderson Street, Pingrup WA 6343 and to require delivery up of the Products without which the Plaintiff will suffer damage and the absence of which will cause damage to the Products by reason of breaches by the Defendant of the agreement entitled 'Landmark Merchandise Partner/Fertiliser Deed Pingrup' dated 2011 and signed in about 2013 (Deed).
The writ also seeks damages for breach of the deed, damages for conversion or alternatively detinue by unlawful detention, and specific restitution.
The plaintiff filed an application on 13 July 2022 for urgent interlocutory orders.
The Notice of Motion sought orders in the following terms (among others):
(1) The Defendant be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining it whether by itself, its officers, members, servants, agents or otherwise, until a date to be fixed from dealing with, touching, altering, moving affecting the Nutrien property set out in Schedule A (Products) at the property described as 8 Sanderson Street Pingrup WA 6343 (Premises) including but not limited to preventing the Plaintiff or its agents from entering…

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 Nutrien AG Solutions Ltd v Pingrup Traders Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Nutrien AG Solutions Ltd v Pingrup Traders Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 251
Case: [2022] WASC 251
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nutrien AG Solutions Ltd applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Pingrup Traders Pty Ltd from dealing with certain products located at Pingrup, Western Australia, and to require the delivery up of the products. The products are currently held by Pingrup Traders, which is an affiliate store owned by independent traders. The parties are in dispute over the terms of an agreement between them, the Landmark Merchandise Partner/Fertiliser Deed Pingrup, dated 2011 and signed in about 2013. Nutrien claims that Pingrup Traders has breached the agreement by refusing to return the products and by asserting an agent's lien over the products. The application was heard by Forrester J, who had to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether Nutrien would suffer irreparable injury for which damages would not be adequate compensation, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether Pingrup Traders was able to claim a lien in this case, such a claim being inconsistent with the contract between the parties. However, the court was not satisfied that Nutrien would suffer irreparable injury for which damages would not be adequate compensation, as the difficulty in making an assessment did not make damages an inadequate remedy. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, as Nutrien offered to pay $450,000 into court as a means to secure the release of all of the property. The court ordered that, subject to the payment into court of cleared funds in the amount of $450,000, the property be delivered up to Nutrien and that, until such time as that occurs, Pingrup Traders be restrained from dealing with the property.

Orders