Sante Wines Pty Ltd v Paxton Wines Pty Ltd

[2018] SASCFC 124

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)

SANTE WINES PTY LTD v PAXTON WINES PTY LTD

[2018] SASCFC 124

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Kelly and The Honourable Justice Stanley)

28 November 2018

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA

CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - IMPLIED TERMS - GENERALLY

Application for permission to appeal against a decision of a Single Judge of this Court, confirming an order in favour of the respondent in the Magistrates Court in relation to a contract dispute over a wine distribution agreement. The Magistrate awarded judgment to the respondent in the sum of $73,755 including interest.

On appeal, the Single Judge upheld the Magistrate’s decision, dismissed the appeal, and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim and set off claim in the amount of $94,012.56.

Held, per Curiam, refusing permission to appeal:

1.  There is no manifest error in the reasons of the Judge.

SANTE WINES PTY LTD v PAXTON WINES PTY LTD
[2018] SASCFC 124

Full Court:      Kourakis CJ, Kelly and Stanley JJ

1. THE COURT:     The applicant seeks permission to appeal against the judgment of a Judge of this Court affirming a decision of the Magistrates Court in a dispute over a wine distribution agreement.

2. The appellant, Sante Wines, distributed in Victoria wines produced by the respondents, Paxton Wines, in Victoria.  Sante Wines claimed that its distribution rights were exclusive, subject only to a direct mailing exception.  Paxton also supplied its wine to Vinomofo, an online wine sales business which had its registered office in South Australia but did have a place of business in Victoria.

3. The Magistrate found, and the Judge affirmed, that:

   ·Emails exchanged between the parties constituted the relevant distribution contract.  A more formal agreement was prepared but not executed.  A concession made by Paxton Wine’s principal in the course of his evidence that Sante Wines was given some degree of exclusivity did not support an exclusivity agreement as restrictive as that alleged by Sante Wines.

   ·In any event Sante Wines had not established that Vinomofo was a licensee in Victoria, and that the exclusivity provision for which Sante Wines contended did not cover Vinomofo’s operation.

   ·Paxton Wines was entitled to terminate its distribution agreement without notice or cause, and that in any event Sante Wines had repudiated the agreement by making late payments.

4. The grounds of appeal seek to reagitate the questions determined adversely to the appellant by both the Magistrate and the Judge.  No error of principle is alleged.  The applicant’s case depends on this Court taking a different view of the legal significance of the factual circumstances of the dispute.

5. There is no manifest error in the reasons of the Judge.  The Court refuses permission to appeal.