Parkinson v Mackay Sugar

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.