Sims v Suda Ltd

Case [2014] WASC 3


SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2014] WASC 3



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WASC 3
Case No:CIV:1535/201219 JULY 2013
Coram:REGISTRAR C BOYLE10/01/14
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Statement of claim struck out with leave to bring in minute of proposed substituted statement of claim
C
PDF Version
Parties:DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
SUDA LTD

Catchwords:

Pleading
Elements of contract
Consideration
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 208, s 209

Case References:

Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
Guinness plc v Saunders [1990] 2 AC 63 [HL]; [1990] 1 All ER 652
Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986)
Marist Brothers Community Inc v The Shire of Harvey (1994) 14 WAR 69
Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; 69 ALR 577


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2014] WASC 3 CORAM : REGISTRAR C BOYLE HEARD : 19 JULY 2013 DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1535 of 2012 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
    Plaintiff

    AND

    SUDA LTD
    Defendant

Catchwords:

Pleading - Elements of contract - Consideration - Turns on own facts

Legislation:


Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 208, s 209

Result:

Statement of claim struck out with leave to bring in minute of proposed substituted statement of claim


Category: C


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr T J Hammond
    Defendant : Mr J R Ludlow

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Patti Chong Lawyer
    Defendant : Downings Legal



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
Guinness plc v Saunders [1990] 2 AC 63 [HL]; [1990] 1 All ER 652
Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986)
Marist Brothers Community Inc v The Shire of Harvey (1994) 14 WAR 69
Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; 69 ALR 577



1 REGISTRAR C BOYLE: At all material times (as the best stories begin) the plaintiff Mr Douglas Sims was a director of the defendant, an unlisted public company. He also had executive roles at times.

2 The plaintiff claims that he and the company entered into a binding agreement under which the company was to pay him money and issue him with shares. It has done neither, and Mr Sims sues. The defendant applies to strike out the statement of claim and for an order dismissing the action and requiring the plaintiff to pay the costs.




When a pleading may be struck out

3 The principles applicable were not in dispute at the hearing. Both…

Continue reading Sims v Suda Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2014] WASC 3
Case
[2014] WASC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the dispute in Sims v Suda Ltd were Sims, the plaintiff, and Suda Ltd, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was a claim for damages for breach of contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the defendant's alleged failure to pay the full purchase price for certain shares as per the contract terms. The defendant argued that the contract was invalid due to a lack of consideration.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the contract between the parties contained valid consideration. The court had to determine if there was a binding agreement supported by consideration, which is an essential element of a valid contract under Australian contract law. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's statement of claim adequately disclosed a cause of action.

In its reasoning, the court found that the statement of claim did not sufficiently plead a cause of action. The court determined that the contract relied upon by the plaintiff was not supported by consideration. The court held that the promise to purchase the shares was made in return for the plaintiff's promise to sell, but this did not constitute valid consideration because it amounted to an exchange of promises rather than a mutual exchange of something of value. As a result, the court struck out the statement of claim but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the pleadings and bring in a minute of the proposed substituted statement of claim.

The court ordered that the statement of claim be struck out with leave to bring in a minute of the proposed substituted statement of claim. This allowed the plaintiff to revise the pleadings to better reflect the legal position and potentially address the issues of consideration and the validity of the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

Statement of claim struck out with leave to bring in minute of proposed substituted statement of claim

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.