Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd v United Resource Management Pty Ltd

Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought a declaration that United Resource Management Pty Ltd, the defendant, was liable for the outstanding payments due under two contracts. The dispute arose from a common mistake regarding the continuation of a contract after its termination and the implications for subsequent agreements. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine the nature of the resulting implied contract and whether there was a failure to make payments under it. Additionally, it had to ascertain the parties to and terms of a further contract and whether there was a failure to make payments under that contract. The court also had to consider whether there was a loss or damage suffered as a result of the common mistake and whether the plaintiff was unjustly enriched. Furthermore, the court examined whether the plaintiff's misleading or deceptive conduct induced an error regarding the continuation of the terminated contract. It also assessed whether the parties were bound by an implied agreement as a result of the misleading or deceptive conduct, and if the further contract was entered into due to that conduct. The court also considered whether there was silence that amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, and whether any loss or damage suffered was a result of such conduct.

The court found that the plaintiff's misleading or deceptive conduct did not induce an error regarding the continuation of the terminated contract, and thus, the parties were not bound by an implied agreement. The court determined that the further contract was not entered into due to misleading or deceptive conduct. Regarding the evidence, the court held that the expert opinion evidence was inadmissible as it was not substantially based on the witness's experience in the industry and did not disclose the facts and assumptions or the reasoning process upon which the opinion was based. The court also found that the failure to call other available witnesses resulted in Jones v Dunkel inferences being drawn.

The court held that Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd was not liable for the outstanding payments due under the contracts. The court did not make any declaration as to the liability of United Resource Management Pty Ltd for the outstanding payments.