Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd v Orora Ltd (Ruling) - [2024] VSC 81

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2023 02183

OPAL PACKAGING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 636 682 883)	Plaintiff
v
ORORA LTD (ACN 004 275 165) (and others according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Waller J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2024
DATE OF RULING:	4 March 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd v Orora Ltd (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 81

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Plaintiff’s application that proceeding be adjourned or stayed until further order or alternatively that a trial of separate questions be ordered — Defendants’ application that different separate questions be ordered— General principles regarding applications for the trial of a separate question — Plaintiff’s application that proceeding be adjourned granted— Defendants’ application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	R Lancaster SC D Hume	Herbert Smith Freehills
For the Defendants	HNG Austin KC JA Findlay	Baker McKenzie

HIS HONOUR:

A.INTRODUCTION

In October 2019 Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd (‘Opal’)[1] entered into a Share and Asset Purchase Agreement (as amended) (‘Amended SAPA’) with Orora Limited and Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd (together ‘Orora’)[2] under which Opal acquired assets and a business from Orora. The assets included properties in New South Wales (‘the Botany site’) and Tasmania (‘the Mowbray site’).
[1]Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd is the Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim.
[2]Orora Limited and Orora Packaging Australia Pty Ltd are the Defendants and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim.

Under the Amended SAPA, Orora agreed to indemnify Opal in respect of any reasonable costs incurred by Opal to remediate any pre-existing contamination where such contamination was required by a government agency to be remediated under a formal notice (‘Environmental Indemnity’).[3]
[3]Clause 2.1 of Schedule 13 of the Amended SAPA. See paragraph 14 below.

Although environmental assessments have identified contamination at the Botany site (‘Botany Contamination’) and the Mowbray site (‘Mowbray Contamination’), no government agency has issued a formal notice requiring the contamination at either site to be remediated and no costs have been incurred remediating contamination under a formal notice.

Before commencing this proceeding, Opal sought to reach agreement with Orora that it need not commence legal proceedings on claims which had not yet arisen on the basis that no cause of action arose until the Environmental Indemnity was triggered by the issuing of a formal notice to remediate and the incurring of costs pursuant to such notice.

No agreement being reached, Opal commenced this proceeding on 23 May 2023. By its statement of claim Opal sought, by way of interlocutory relief, an order that the proceeding be stayed with liberty to relist on seven days’ notice, alternatively an order for a separate question or questions to be determined on terms to be formulated.

On 16 August 2023 Opal filed a summons seeking an order that:

(a) the proceeding be…

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 Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd v Orora Ltd (Ruling) 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: [2024] VSC 81
Decision Date: 4 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Opal Packaging Australia Pty Ltd sought an adjournment or stay of the proceedings against Orora Ltd, or alternatively, a trial of separate questions. The dispute between the parties revolves around intellectual property rights, specifically in relation to packaging design. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendants, Orora Ltd, countered with their own application that different separate questions be ordered. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action regarding the trial of separate questions and the management of the proceedings.

The legal issues at the core of this case centred on the principles governing applications for the trial of separate questions. The plaintiff argued for an adjournment or stay to facilitate the resolution of certain preliminary issues, while the defendants sought a different approach to the separate questions. The court had to balance the need for an efficient trial against the potential benefits of resolving specific issues in advance. Additionally, the court needed to consider the general principles that guide such applications, ensuring that the proceedings are managed in a fair and expeditious manner.

The court found that the plaintiff’s application for an adjournment or stay of the proceedings was well-founded, given the complexity of the issues and the potential for significant delays. The court granted the plaintiff's request, allowing the proceedings to be adjourned or stayed until further order. Conversely, the court declined the defendants' application to order different separate questions, finding that it would not serve the interests of justice or expedite the resolution of the case. The court’s decision was grounded in the need to manage the proceedings effectively and to ensure that the trial could proceed in a manner that was both fair and efficient.

No final orders were made in this ruling, as the matter was still in the early stages of litigation. The court's decision to grant the adjournment or stay was provisional, pending further developments in the case. The parties were directed to return to court at a specified date to address any further applications or to commence the trial of the remaining issues.

Orders