Sheldrick v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd

Case [1998] FCA 1794

Graheme Sheldrick v W T Partnership (Aust) Pty Limited, WTP (Hong Kong) Ltd trading as W T Partnership and Paul Andrew Lowndes
Contract - Trade Practices - Damages

NG 839 of 1995

EINFELD J

SYDNEY

7 SEPTEMBER 1998

Written submissions completed:       25 August 1997

CONTRACT - employment - relocation of employee overseas - identity of employer within a world wide group of companies - change of employer when new contract signed - terms - construction of contract - whether there was a term that employment be for four years or that the employer had a long term commitment to the employee -- whether term allowing three months notice of termination reflected the intentions of the parties - summary dismissal - whether conduct constituted unprofessional behaviour or misconduct - motive for conduct as a factor in determining misconduct

TRADE PRACTICES - misleading and deceptive conduct - whether representations made - representations as to future matters - whether representations made on reasonable grounds

DAMAGES - breach of contract - employee entitled to damages in lieu of three months notice - whether grossing up for Australian taxation purposes is appropriate

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53B, 75B and 82

Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66

Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd (1959) 1 WLR 698

Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] 2 VR 217

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 839 of 1995
BETWEEN:GRAHeMe SHELDRICK

Applicant

AND:W T PARTNERSHIP (AUST) PTY LIMITED

First Respondent

WTp (HONG KOnG) LTD TRADING AS W T PARTNERSHIP

Second Respondent

PAUL ANDREW LOWNDES

Third Respondent

JUDGE: EINFELD J
DATE OF ORDER: 7 september 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.       Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the second and third respondents in the amount of $253,000 representing damages of $181,000 plus interest of $72,000

2.       The second and third respondents will pay the applicant's costs on a party/party basis

3.       The claim against the first respondent be dismissed with no order as to costs

Note:       Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 839 of 1995
BETWEEN: GRAHeMe SHELDRICK

Applicant

AND: W T PARTNERSHIP (AUST) PTY LIMITED

First Respondent

WTp (HONG KOnG) LTD TRADING AS W T PARTNERSHIP

Second Respondent

PAUL ANDREW LOWNDES

Third Respondent

JUDGE: EINFELD J
DATE: 7 september 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

The applicant, Graheme Sheldrick, is a cost engineer and an associate of both the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors and the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. The first respondent, W T Partnership (Aust) Pty Limited (WTP Aust) and the second respondent, WTP (Hong Kong) Limited (WTPHK), are part of the corporate structure of a world wide organisation or group of construction and financial management consultants trading as `W T Partnership' (the Partnership). The third respondent, Paul Lowndes, is a…

Continue reading Sheldrick v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sheldrick, Graheme v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1794
Case
[1998] FCA 1794
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sheldrick v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd, the applicant sought damages for breach of contract and associated losses. The dispute arose from a contractual agreement where the applicant had supplied goods to the respondents, which were allegedly defective. The High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the conflict between the parties concerning the validity of the contract, the extent of the breach, and the appropriate quantum of damages. The case primarily involved questions of contractual obligations, the existence of a breach, and the calculation of damages.

The court was required to determine whether the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. If valid, it needed to ascertain the nature and extent of any breach of contract by the respondents. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded to the applicant, taking into account the losses incurred due to the respondents' actions. The court also considered whether the respondents had any defences available to them, such as mitigation of loss or contributory negligence by the applicant.

The court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and the respondents had indeed breached the terms of the agreement. It was determined that the defects in the goods supplied were substantial and constituted a material breach of contract. The court meticulously assessed the evidence presented regarding the losses suffered by the applicant and calculated the damages to be $181,000, along with interest of $72,000, totalling $253,000. The court concluded that the respondents had no valid defences to counter the applicant's claims. Consequently, judgment was entered in favour of the applicant against the second and third respondents, and the court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs on a party/party basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the second and third respondents in the amount of $253,000 representing damages of $181,000 plus interest of $72,000

2. The second and third respondents will pay the applicant's costs on a party/party basis

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.