FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sims v Suda Ltd [2016] FCA 1086
Appeal from: Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] FCCA 2934 File number(s): WAD 627 of 2015 Judge(s): SIOPIS J Date of judgment: 7 September 2016 Catchwords: CONTRACT – indemnity clause in an executive employment contract – former director unsuccessfully brought a claim against the company of which he was formerly a director – indemnity costs awarded against the former director – whether the indemnity clause operated to indemnify the former director against the indemnity costs order. Legislation: Australian Consumer Law at Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 18
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40(1)(g)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 199A(2), 199A(3)
Cases cited: Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 281 Date of hearing: 12 May 2016 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 33 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr N Ebbs Solicitor for the Respondent: Bennett + Co ORDERS
WAD 627 of 2015 BETWEEN: DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
Appellant
AND: SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250)
Respondent
JUDGE:
SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 SEPTEMBER 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SIOPIS J:
This is an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, dated 27 October 2015, which dismissed an application by the appellant, Mr Douglas Sims, to review the decision of a Registrar of that court, dated 1 October 2015. The Registrar’s decision was to refuse to set aside a bankruptcy notice addressed to Mr Sims.
BACKGROUND
On 2 October 2007, Mr Sims entered into a written contract of employment with the respondent, Suda Ltd, then known as Eastland Medical Systems Ltd. Clause 14 of that contract was an indemnity clause. It is this clause which is at the centre of this proceeding.
After Mr Sims’ resignation as a director and executive of Suda Ltd on 9 June 2009, Mr Sims has, at various times, commenced and prosecuted a number of legal proceedings against Suda Ltd in the Commonwealth courts and the courts of the State of Western Australia, including the District Court of Western Australia and the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
On 14 August 2014, Mr Sims commenced a proceeding (WAD 255 of 2014) in this Court against Suda Ltd. In that proceeding Mr Sims made three claims. The first claim alleged breach of contract and statutory contravention. Mr Sims alleged that Suda Ltd had breached an agreement to indemnify him in respect of his legal costs pursuant to an obligation under a settlement deed, dated 22 December 2010. Mr Sims also alleged that by breaching this contractual obligation, Suda Ltd contravened s…
Continue reading Sims v Suda Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sims v Suda Ltd [2016] FCA 1086
- Case
- [2016] FCA 1086
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the indemnity clause in Mr Sims' contract of employment did not operate to indemnify him against the indemnity costs order. The court held that the indemnity clause was limited to indemnifying Mr Sims against legal costs incurred by him in connection with the enforcement of his rights under the contract. The court found that the indemnity costs order was not incurred by Mr Sims in connection with the enforcement of his rights under the contract but rather as a consequence of his unsuccessful legal proceedings against Suda Ltd. Therefore, the indemnity clause did not apply to indemnify Mr Sims against the indemnity costs order.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Mr Sims pay Suda Ltd's costs. The appeal was dismissed because the court found that the indemnity clause in Mr Sims' contract of employment did not operate to indemnify him against the indemnity costs order made against him in his proceeding against Suda Ltd. The court held that the indemnity clause was limited to indemnifying Mr Sims against legal costs incurred by him in connection with the enforcement of his rights under the contract. Since the indemnity costs order was not incurred by Mr Sims in connection with the enforcement of his rights under the contract, the indemnity clause did not apply to indemnify him against the indemnity costs order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and Mr Sims was ordered to pay Suda Ltd's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.