Patdith Services Pty Ltd v Mitronics Corporation Pty Ltd - [2016] FCCA 1611

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PATDITH SERVICES PTY LTD & ANOR v MITRONICS CORPORATION PTY LTD & ANOR

[2016] FCCA 1611

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for order under r.13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) that proceeding be dismissed – whether applicants have no reasonable prospects of establishing they suffered loss or damage “by” the misleading or deceptive conduct of the first respondent within the meaning of s.82(1) and s.87(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – whether applicants have no reasonable prospects of establishing they suffered loss or damage because of the respondents’ alleged breaches of terms as to fitness for purpose, merchantable quality, and the provision of services with due care and skill – whether notwithstanding the applicants not having reasonable prospects of proving loss and damage they nevertheless have a cause of action based on the breach of implied terms for nominal damages.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.17A, 17A(2)(b)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10, 13.10(a)

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s.52, 52(1), 71, 73, 73(1), 73(14), 74, 74D(1), 82, 82(1), 87, 87(1)

Cases cited:

Battley v Faulkner (1820) 3 B & Ald 288; 106 ER 668
Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; 195 CLR 232
Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1
Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd & Ors (1987) 78 ALR 193

Henry v Leighton Admin Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] FCCA 1923

Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66; 61 CLR 286
March v Stramere (E. & M.H.) Pty Limited (1991) 171 CLR 506
Masters Dairy Ltd v Nagy (1998) 156 ALR 262
Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) v No 1 Raberem Pty Ltd (1991) 104 ALR 397
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 14; (1985) 157 CLR 17
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
Re Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust (1991) 30 FCR 491
Re Franki Arturi v Zupps Motors Pty Ltd and Auswide Pty Limited [1980] FCA 164; (1980) 49 FLR 283
State of New South Wales v Stevens [2012] NSWCA 415
State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 28 FCR 28
The Countess of Bective v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1932) 47 CLR 417
The National Insurance Company of New Zealand Limited v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569
Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1988] FCA 373; (1988) 19 FCR 469
Wardley Australia Limited v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Zheng v Cai (2010) 239 CLR 446

First Applicant:

PATDITH SERVICES PTY LTD

Second Applicant:

VICTOR BERGER

First Respondent:

MITRONICS CORPORATION PTY LTD

Second Respondent:

CAPITAL FINANCE AUSTRALIA LTD

File Number:

SYG 548 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date:

25 May 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

30 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicants:

Mr R Brender

Counsel for the…

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 Patdith Services Pty Ltd v Mitronics Corporation Pty 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: [2016] FCCA 1611
Decision Date: 30 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patdith Services Pty Ltd (Patdith) and Mitronics Corporation Pty Ltd (Mitronics) were parties to a dispute concerning a contract for the supply of goods. The matter came before Judge Manousaridis in the District Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mitronics had breached its contractual obligations to Patdith by failing to supply goods as agreed, and if so, what damages were recoverable by Patdith as a consequence of that breach. The court was also required to consider whether Patdith had repudiated the contract, thereby excusing Mitronics's performance.

Judge Manousaridis found that Mitronics had breached the contract by failing to supply the agreed goods. The court reasoned that the terms of the contract were clear and that Mitronics had not provided a valid excuse for its non-performance. The court rejected the argument that Patdith had repudiated the contract, finding that Patdith's actions were consistent with seeking performance of the contract. In assessing damages, the court applied the principle of putting the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, considering the loss of profit Patdith would have made on the resale of the goods.

The court ordered that Mitronics pay damages to Patdith in the sum of $100,000, plus interest and costs.

Orders