Programmed Maintenance Services Limited v The Shell Company of Australia Ltd
Case
•
[2000] QDC 249
•4 August 2000
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Programmed Maintenance Services Limited v The Shell Company of Australia Ltd [2000] QDC 249
[2000] QDC 249
4 August 2000
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Programmed Maintenance Services Limited (plaintiff) brought an action against The Shell Company of Australia Ltd (defendant) in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought recovery of a debt for the supply, delivery, installation and commissioning of RVI Signage at Shell retail outlets. The defendant argued that the court in Victoria was not the appropriate court to determine the matter and sought a stay of proceedings. The defendant relied on a contractual clause that stipulated that the courts in Victoria have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute.
The court was required to determine whether the contractual clause that stipulated exclusive jurisdiction for the courts in Victoria deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court examined the basis for the defendant's submission that the contract contemplated was for the supply of all the company’s RVI Signage requirements, with the defendant committing to the purchase of signage for particular sites from time to time during the period. The court also considered whether the fact that there was a contract governing the relationship between the parties was inconsistent with the existence of a separate contract between the parties for the supply and erection at a particular price of a particular sign.
The court found that there was no doubt that there was a contract formed, through the acceptance of the plaintiff's tender. The court held that the fact that there was a contract governing the relationship between the parties was not inconsistent with the existence of a separate contract between the parties for the supply and erection at a particular price of a particular sign. The court held that the contractual clause stipulating exclusive jurisdiction for the courts in Victoria did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings and struck out the conditional Notice of Intention to Defend. The court also extended the time for filing of Notice of Intention to Defend.
The court was required to determine whether the contractual clause that stipulated exclusive jurisdiction for the courts in Victoria deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court examined the basis for the defendant's submission that the contract contemplated was for the supply of all the company’s RVI Signage requirements, with the defendant committing to the purchase of signage for particular sites from time to time during the period. The court also considered whether the fact that there was a contract governing the relationship between the parties was inconsistent with the existence of a separate contract between the parties for the supply and erection at a particular price of a particular sign.
The court found that there was no doubt that there was a contract formed, through the acceptance of the plaintiff's tender. The court held that the fact that there was a contract governing the relationship between the parties was not inconsistent with the existence of a separate contract between the parties for the supply and erection at a particular price of a particular sign. The court held that the contractual clause stipulating exclusive jurisdiction for the courts in Victoria did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings and struck out the conditional Notice of Intention to Defend. The court also extended the time for filing of Notice of Intention to Defend.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Contract Formation
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Programmed Maintenance Services Limited v The Shell Company of Australia Ltd [2000] QDC 249
Most Recent Citation
Vertex Systems Oy v Topline Steel Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 54
Cases Citing This Decision
80
Joshan v Pizza Pan Group Pty Ltd
[2021] NSWCA 219
Joshan v Pizza Pan Group Pty Ltd
[2021] NSWCA 219
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship Mill Hill
[1950] HCA 43
Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship Mill Hill
[1950] HCA 43