Parkinson v Mackay Sugar

Case [2018] QSC 168

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parkinson v Mackay Sugar [2018] QSC 168

PARTIES:

GARY MICHAEL PARKINSON AND TRUDI PARKINSON ATF THE GM & T PARKINSON FAMILY TRUST
(applicant)
v
MACKAY SUGAR LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

SC No 30 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2018

JUDGE:

Holmes CJ

ORDERS:

1.     It is declared that:

a)       the respondent cannot amend Annexure D with effect against the applicants without the agreement of their bargaining representatives;

b)       the deeds poll executed on 12 April 2018 are of no effect.

2.     The respondent is to pay the applicants’ costs of the application, including the reserved costs resulting from the adjournment of the application on its return date.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant canegrowers and the respondent mill owner entered into a Cane Supply and Processing Agreement  –  where Clause 7(c) of the Agreement gives the respondent power to alter the terms of the Annexures to the Agreement in consultation with growers’ bargaining representatives – where the respondent purported unilaterally to amend Annexure D by deed poll so as to impose a $2 per tonne levy on cane supplied to the mill – where the applicants contend that on the proper construction of Clause 7(c), the respondent cannot amend Annexure D without the agreement of their bargaining representatives – where the respondent contends that the clause is unambiguous and gives the applicants no more than a right for their representatives to be heard on any proposed change – whether the clause is unambiguous – whether the clause requires the agreement of the applicants’ bargaining representatives to amendment of Annexure D

Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld), ss 30, 31, 33, 34
Sugar Industry Reform Act 2004 (Qld)

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99, applied
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266, applied
Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 1, cited
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australian v QR Limited [2010] FCA 591, cited

Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 34 ALR 58, applied

Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640, applied
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407, applied
Gondarra v Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2014] FCA 25, cited

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 236 FCR 199, applied

Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth (1969) 131 CLR 353, followed
Stroppiana & Ors v Mackay Sugar Ltd [2017] QSC 217, applied

COUNSEL: 
N H Ferrett for the applicant
D L K Atkinson with F Y Lubett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wallace…

Continue reading Parkinson v Mackay Sugar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Parkinson v Mackay Sugar [2018] QSC 168
Case
[2018] QSC 168
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parkinson v Mackay Sugar dealt with a dispute between canegrowers and a mill owner over amendments made to a contract. The applicants, canegrowers, and the respondent, a mill owner, had entered into a Cane Supply and Processing Agreement. Clause 7(c) of the Agreement allowed the respondent to alter the terms of the Annexures in consultation with the growers' bargaining representatives. The dispute arose when the respondent unilaterally amended Annexure D by deed poll, imposing a $2 per tonne levy on cane supplied to the mill. The applicants argued that Clause 7(c) required the agreement of their bargaining representatives for any amendment to Annexure D, while the respondent maintained that the clause was unambiguous and only required their representatives to be heard on any proposed change.

The court had to determine the proper interpretation of Clause 7(c) and whether it required the agreement of the applicants’ bargaining representatives for amendments to Annexure D. The applicants contended that the clause mandated their representatives’ agreement for any changes, while the respondent argued that it merely required their representatives to be heard. The court found that the clause was ambiguous and required the agreement of the applicants’ bargaining representatives for any amendment to Annexure D. This interpretation was supported by the nature of the contract and the context in which the clause was set.

The court declared that the respondent could not amend Annexure D without the agreement of the applicants' bargaining representatives, and the deeds poll executed on 12 April 2018 were of no effect. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the application, including reserved costs resulting from the adjournment of the application on its return date. This decision clarified the contractual obligations and ensured that the canegrowers' bargaining representatives had a say in any amendments to the contract terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that:

a) the respondent cannot amend Annexure D with effect against the applicants without the agreement of their bargaining representatives;

b) the deeds poll executed on 12 April 2018 are of no effect.

2. The respondent is to pay the applicants’ costs of the application, including the reserved costs resulting from the adjournment of the application on its return date.

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.