Sims v Suda Ltd

Case [2016] FCA 1086


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:

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

Details
AGLC
Sims v Suda Ltd [2016] FCA 1086
Case
[2016] FCA 1086
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Douglas Sims appealed against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which dismissed his application to review a decision of a Registrar of the court. The Registrar had dismissed Mr Sims' application to set aside a bankruptcy notice served on him by the official receiver on the application of Suda Ltd. The bankruptcy notice was issued in respect of an indemnity costs order made by Gilmour J in a proceeding commenced by Mr Sims against Suda Ltd. The primary issue for the court was whether the indemnity clause in Mr Sims' contract of employment with Suda Ltd operated to indemnify him against the indemnity costs order made against him in his proceeding against Suda Ltd.

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

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 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) at Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and, or alternatively, s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The second claim appeared to be for compensation under an unparticularised contract to pay him for the development and subsequent transfer of trademarks and, again, for compensation under s 18 of the ACL and, or alternatively, s 52 of the Trade Practices Act and quantum meruit. The third claim was a claim for damages for fraud. On 27 March 2015, Gilmour J struck out Mr Sims’ pleading in WAD 255 of 2014 and summarily dismissed his application. Gilmour J also ordered that Mr Sims pay Suda Ltd’s costs on an indemnity basis (Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 281). On 1 September 2015, the official receiver, on the application of Suda Ltd, issued bankruptcy notice BN184276 addressed to Mr Sims in the sum of $30,284.00 being the amount owed in respect of the indemnity costs order made by Gilmour J in WAD 255 of 2014. The bankruptcy notice was served on Mr Sims. On 18 September 2015, Mr Sims filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court to set aside the bankruptcy notice. On 1 October 2015, Mr Sims’ application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed by a Registrar of the court. On 12 October 2015, Mr Sims filed an application for review of the Registrar’s decision dismissing his application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT On 27 October 2015, the primary judge in the Federal Circuit Court dismissed Mr Sims’ application for review of the Registrar’s decision (Douglas Arthur Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] FCCA 2934).

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.