One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd v Reed [No 2] - [2023] WASC 422

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ONE STOP WAREHOUSE PTY LTD -v- REED [No 2] [2023] WASC 422
CORAM:   SEAWARD J
HEARD:   17 OCTOBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   6 NOVEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1441 of 2023
BETWEEN:   ONE STOP WAREHOUSE PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
ROBERT REED
First Defendant
GO SOLAR GROUP PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Procedure - Pleadings - Application to strike out defence and counterclaim - Whether the matters pleaded disclose a reasonable defence - Whether the matters pleaded may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the action - Whether the matters pleaded are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - Whether the matters pleaded are an abuse of process - Relevant principles - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	F Stanton
First Defendant	:	A Musikanth SC and ND Ellery
Second Defendant	:	A Musikanth SC and ND Ellery

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Minter Ellison
First Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Second Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)

Cases referred to in decision:

DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 97
English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
Griffiths & Beerens Pty Ltd v Duggan [2008] VSC 201
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398

SEAWARD J:

Introduction

The plaintiff, One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd (OSW), carries on business as a wholesaler of solar panels and related equipment. OSW's customers are companies engaged in the retail sale of those products, including electricians.
The first defendant, Mr Reed, was employed at OSW since 17 July 2018. On 27 January 2023, Mr Reed tendered his resignation from OSW and the last day of his employment was 24 February 2023. As at the date of his resignation Mr Reed was the Lead Account manager and responsible for all sales in Western Australia and for the management of the Western Australian sales team.
On or about 2 March 2023, Mr Reed commenced working for the second defendant, Go Solar Group Pty Ltd (Go Solar). Like OSW, Go Solar is a wholesaler of solar panels and related equipment and is therefore a competitor of OSW.
By writ dated 3 May 2023, OSW commenced an action against Mr Reed and Go Solar seeking to enforce what it says are the contractual restraint of trade clauses to which Mr Reed is subject.
There have been a number of iterations of the statement of claim, the latest being 10 August 2023 (statement of claim).
There have also been a number of iterations of the defence. In response to the amended defence and counterclaim dated 23 August 2023, OSW, by way of chamber summons dated 25 August 2023, applies to strike out certain paragraphs of that pleading.
For the reasons I will now detail, I will allow the chamber summons (as amended during the hearing).

Pleadings

The strike out application concerns five sub-paragraphs of the…

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 One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd v Reed [No 2]

Details

AGLC: One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd v Reed [No 2] [2023] WASC 422
Case: [2023] WASC 422
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd sought relief in the Federal Circuit Court against Reed, claiming damages for breach of contract and related claims. Reed denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim alleging defamation and abuse of process. One Stop Warehouse applied to have Reed's defence and counterclaim struck out, arguing they disclosed no reasonable defence, would prejudice, embarrass or delay the trial, and were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. The court considered the relevant principles governing applications to strike out pleadings and applied these to the facts of the case. It determined the matters pleaded did not meet the criteria for striking out, as they disclosed a reasonable defence and were not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the defence raised genuine issues of fact and law that needed to be determined at trial. It also found the counterclaim, though perhaps speculative, was not scandalous or frivolous. The court held that Reed's pleadings did not constitute an abuse of process and would not prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. It therefore dismissed the application to strike out. The case proceeded to trial on the merits of the claims and counterclaims.

Orders