Papale v Wilmar Sugar Australia Ltd - [2017] QSC 72

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Papale & Ors v Wilmar Sugar Australia Ltd [2017] QSC 72

PARTIES:

R PAPALE & V J PAPALE (TRADING AS VJ & R PAPALE); GK & MR STOCKHAM; JORDAN FARMING (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 126 223 532 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JORDAN FARMING TRUST; PHILIP MARANO AS TRUSTEE FOR THE G MARANO FAMILY TRUST (TRADING AS P J & G MARANO) & ORS

(plaintiffs)

v
WILMAR SUGAR AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 098 999 985 (FORMERLY SUCROGEN LIMITED)

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 11630 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

30 November 2015, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 December 2015 and 18 March 2016.
Further submissions provided by the parties on 24 March 2016.

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.   The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.

2.   The counterclaim is dismissed.

3.   I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – IMPLIED TERMS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant miller to sell sugar cane for processing and export – where the market exporter could not meet supply commitments and was required to purchase further supply – where the defendant and market exporter agreed on a basis of distribution of the costs of increased supply amongst the plaintiffs – where those costs were passed onto the plaintiffs by the defendant – whether the defendant’s conduct was in breach of its agreements with the plaintiffs – whether the defendant’s conduct was in breach of an implied term of good faith

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – GENERALLY – whether the defendant engaged in unconscionable conduct in passing on the costs to the plaintiffs under their agreements

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169
Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2015] QCA 127
Hurley v McDonald’s Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-741
Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney Southwest Area Health Service [2010] NSWSCA 268
Stacks Managed Investements v Tolteca Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 276

COUNSEL:

G A Thompson QC and D Pyle for the plaintiffs

G J Gibson QC and D E F Chesterman for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Clayton Utz Lawyers for the plaintiffs

Russells for the defendant

Introduction

The 316 plaintiffs are farmers who grew sugar cane in the Burdekin region of Queensland during the period known as the “2010 Season” (the period between 1 December 2009 and July 2011).
The plaintiffs, and other growers who are not parties to this proceeding, sold sugar cane to the defendant, which was and is a sugar miller. The defendant processed the sugar cane supplied by the plaintiffs, and the other growers, and produced raw sugar.
Some of the raw sugar produced by the defendant from cane supplied by the plaintiffs was bound for export.…

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 Papale v Wilmar Sugar Australia Ltd 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: [2017] QSC 72
Decision Date: 8 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Papale v Wilmar Sugar Australia Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were cane growers, and the defendant, a sugar miller. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached their contractual agreements and engaged in unconscionable conduct when it passed on increased costs for additional sugar cane supply to them. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the defendant's conduct amounted to a breach of the agreements with the plaintiffs and if the defendant's actions breached an implied term of good faith. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the defendant engaged in unconscionable conduct by passing on the increased costs to the plaintiffs.

In examining the agreements between the parties, the court found that the defendant had the right to pass on the additional costs for sugar cane supply to the plaintiffs, as the contracts did not prohibit such action. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct did not constitute a breach of contract or an implied term of good faith. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's actions did not amount to unconscionable conduct under Australian consumer protection laws, as there was no element of unfairness or taking advantage of a position of power.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, along with the counterclaim. The judge ordered that the parties would be heard regarding costs. This decision highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding contractual terms and obligations, as well as the need for cane growers and sugar millers to be aware of their rights and responsibilities under the law when entering into agreements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed.

2. The counterclaim is dismissed.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Papale & Ors v Wilmar Sugar Australia Ltd [2017] QSC 72
PARTIES:	R PAPALE & V J PAPALE (TRADING AS VJ & R PAPALE); GK & MR STOCKHAM; JORDAN FARMING (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 126 223 532 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE JORDAN FARMING TRUST; PHILIP MARANO AS TRUSTEE FOR THE G MARANO FAMILY TRUST (TRADING AS P J & G MARANO) & ORS (plaintiffs) v WILMAR SUGAR AUSTRALIA LTD ACN 098 999 985 (FORMERLY SUCROGEN LIMITED) (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 11630 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	8 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	30 November 2015, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 December 2015 and 18 March 2016. Further submissions provided by the parties on 24 March 2016.
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. 3. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – IMPLIED TERMS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant miller to sell sugar cane for processing and export – where the market exporter could not meet supply commitments and was required to purchase further supply – where the defendant and market exporter agreed on a basis of distribution of the costs of increased supply amongst the plaintiffs – where those costs were passed onto the plaintiffs by the defendant – whether the defendant’s conduct was in breach of its agreements with the plaintiffs – whether the defendant’s conduct was in breach of an implied term of good faith TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – GENERALLY – whether the defendant engaged in unconscionable conduct in passing on the costs to the plaintiffs under their agreements Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169 Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2015] QCA 127 Hurley v McDonald’s Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-741 Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney Southwest Area Health Service [2010] NSWSCA 268 Stacks Managed Investements v Tolteca Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 276
COUNSEL:	G A Thompson QC and D Pyle for the plaintiffs G J Gibson QC and D E F Chesterman for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Clayton Utz Lawyers for the plaintiffs Russells for the defendant