Sentiel Pty Ltd v THC Global Group Limited

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sentiel Pty Ltd v THC Global Group Limited [2022] NSWDC 393

Hearing dates:

24 and 25 August 2022; 2 September 2022

Date of orders:

2 September 2022

Decision date:

02 September 2022

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Weber SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   That there be judgment and verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $13,200.

(2) Interest thereon at the rates pertaining thereon from time to time pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Catchwords:

CONTRACTS — Breach of contract — Consequences of breach

CONTRACTS — Construction

CONTRACTS — Terms — Exclusion clauses — Contra proferentem rule

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Butt v McDonald (1896) 7 QLJ 68

Marshall v Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd [1904] HCA 31; (1904) 1 CLR 632

O'Keefe v Williams [1907] HCA 64; (1907) 5 CLR 217

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Australasian Performing Rights Association [1973] HCA 36; (1973) 129 CLR 99

Forbes v Git [1922] 1 AC 256

The Owners’ Strata Plan No 66375 v King [2018] NSWCA 170

Texts Cited:

The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia (Law Book Co, 1st Edition, 2012)

Heydon on Contract, 1st Edition

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff: Sentiel Pty Ltd
Defendant: THC Global Group Limited

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr D Nagle
Defendant: Ms P Thew

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: CLH Lawyers
Defendant: Piper Alderman

File Number(s):

2021/41074

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

Introduction

1. Pursuant to a contract dated 1 November 2019 the defendant engaged the plaintiff to provide consultancy services (“the Contract”). The plaintiff says that the defendant terminated the Contract, and that it is contractually entitled to the payment of a sum being the equivalent of six months fees which would otherwise be payable pursuant to the Contract (“the Notice Issue”).

2. The plaintiff also seeks to recover a sum which he says is payable pursuant to the contract, on account of the fact that he had achieved certain key performance indicators in relation to its consultancy (“the KPI issue”).

3. I have used the male pronoun to describe the plaintiff in the previous sentence though this is not strictly correct. The correct description is that the plaintiff is a company who provided the services of Mr Andrew Beehag to the defendant enable it to provide the requisite services to the defendant, in fulfilment of the plaintiff's obligations pursuant to the Contract.

The Contract

4. The Contract in its Clause 1 contains definitions which were part of the operative clauses to the agreement. The following definitions are relevant to the proceedings.

1. Commencement Date means 1^st November 2019

2. Engagement means the engagement of the Consultant under this agreement

3. Termination Date means 31^st October 2020, unless terminated earlier pursuant to clauses 20 or 21

5. Clauses 3, 4, 11 and 20 are in the following terms:

3. Engagement

The Company engages the Consultant to perform the Services on the terms of this agreement.

4. Engagement Term

4.1 The Company engages the…