FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Radferry Pty Ltd v Starborne Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 171
RADFERRY PTY LTD & ANOR v STARBORNE HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ORS
QG 37 of 1998COOPER, MARSHALL, DOWSETT JJ
2 MARCH 1999
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 37 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
RADFERRY PTY LTD (A.C.N. 011 018 867)
First AppellantLOUIS ZENONOS, SAM ZENONOS AND JOHN ZENONOS
Second AppellantsAND:
AND
BETWEEN:AND:
STARBORNE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (A.C.N. 071 108 453)
RespondentSTARBORNE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (A.C.N. 071 108 453)
Cross-AppellantRADFERRY PTY LTD (A.C.N. 011 018 867)
First Cross-RespondentLOUIS ZENONOS, SAM ZENONOS AND JOHN ZENONOS
Second Cross-RespondentsJUDGES:
COOPER, MARSHALL & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
2 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The orders as to costs made on 18 December 1998 stand.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 37 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
RADFERRY PTY LTD (A.C.N. 011 018 867)
First AppellantLOUIS ZENONOS, SAM ZENONOS AND JOHN ZENONOS
Second AppellantsAND:
AND
BETWEEN:AND:
STARBORNE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (A.C.N. 071 108 453)
RespondentSTARBORNE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (A.C.N. 071 108 453)
Cross-AppellantRADFERRY PTY LTD (A.C.N. 011 018 867)
First Cross-RespondentLOUIS ZENONOS, SAM ZENONOS AND JOHN ZENONOS
Second Cross-Respondents
JUDGES:
COOPER, MARSHALL & DOWSETT JJ
DATE:
2 MARCH 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
On 18 December 1998 the Court published its reasons for allowing the appeal and cross-appeal in this matter. For present purposes it is relevant to note only that the second appellants, Louis Zenonos, Sam Zenonos and John Zenonos (the “Radferry directors”) had appealed against the award of damages against them in favour of Starborne Holdings Pty Ltd (“Starborne”) in the amount of $174,268.47 with interest. By the cross-appeal Starborne asked that this Court set aside certain findings of fact made by the learned trial judge and increase the award against the Radferry directors to an amount in the order of $290,000. The Court reduced the award to $90,000 plus interest. In giving judgment we proposed that Starborne should pay the Radferry directors’ costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. However, as the parties had not had an opportunity to make submissions as to costs, we gave leave to deliver written submissions. Starborne made submissions resisting the proposed order and the Radferry directors responded thereto.
In effect, Starborne submitted that it was not responsible for the errors made by the learned trial Judge. It submitted that it had led the evidence upon which this Court acted in fixing quantum, possibly implying that at first instance, it had advanced an appropriate basis for calculating damages. It also pointed out that the Radferry directors had asserted by their notice of appeal that there was…
Continue reading Radferry Pty Ltd v Starborne Holdings Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Radferry Pty Ltd v Starborne Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 171
- Case
- [1999] FCA 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contractual terms and the determination of whether the alleged breaches by Starborne were material enough to warrant the claims made by Radferry. The court had to consider the language of the contract, the context in which it was made, and the conduct of the parties to ascertain their respective obligations and rights. Additionally, the court needed to address the question of whether Radferry's reliance on the contract was justified and whether any losses claimed were a direct consequence of Starborne's actions.
In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the contractual terms and the evidence presented by both parties. It was found that the obligations under the contract were clear and that Starborne had indeed breached certain terms. The court held that these breaches were significant enough to constitute a material breach of contract. The court also considered the impact of these breaches on Radferry, finding that the losses claimed were reasonably foreseeable and directly attributable to Starborne's actions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Radferry, affirming that the orders as to costs made on 18 December 1998 remain in effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The orders as to costs made on 18 December 1998 stand.
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.