Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd v United Resource Management Pty Ltd (No 2)

Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) initiated legal proceedings against United Resource Management Pty Ltd (the first defendant) and United Resources Management (Aust) Pty Ltd (the second defendant) in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought relief for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct and unjust enrichment, as well as a declaration that a contract between the parties was void ab initio. The dispute centred on a contract where the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver scrap metal to the first defendant, which would then be sold on by the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the second defendant, through its director, played a pivotal role in the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. The first defendant conceded the allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and unjust enrichment but contested the claim for a declaration that the contract was void ab initio. The plaintiff sought indemnity costs from both defendants, while the defendants sought a costs order against the plaintiff. The primary legal issues before the court were whether a declaration that the contract was void ab initio should be made, and if the defendants should be held liable for misleading and deceptive conduct and unjust enrichment. The court considered whether a Calderbank offer had been made and if it was reasonable to reject such an offer. The court found that the first defendant had made a genuine Calderbank offer, which was reasonable to reject, and that the second defendant had also engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The court decided not to make a declaration that the contract was void ab initio as it would not result in further compensation or damages. However, the court ordered that both the first and second defendants were liable for misleading and deceptive conduct and unjust enrichment. Consequently, indemnity costs were ordered against both defendants. The court also made money orders against both defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable. The final orders included that the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis, and both defendants be jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding.