Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland

Case [2000] FCA 1078

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 1078

SITA QLD PTY LTD AND HARLINGDALE PTY LTD v STATE OF QUEENSLAND, THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND), SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD AND RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK’S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE

QG 95 OF 1998

DOWSETT J
30 JUNE 2000
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 95 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

SITA QLD PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HARLINGDALE PTY LTD
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
THIRD RESPONDENT

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND)
FOURTH RESPONDENT

SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JUNE 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application to amend the statement of claim be refused.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 95 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

SITA QLD PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HARLINGDALE PTY LTD
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
THIRD RESPONDENT

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (QUEENSLAND)
FOURTH RESPONDENT

SURFSIDE BUSLINES PTY LTD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RAYMOND GRAHAM CLARK AND YVONNE HAZEL CLARK TRADING AS CLARK'S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

30 JUNE 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Application is made at the end of addresses to amend the statement of claim to permit the applicants to rely upon ostensible authority should the Court not be satisfied that the former Minister had actual authority to enter into the alleged contract.  Superficially, that issue may appear to be fairly limited in that the applicants seek to rely only upon his position as evidence of ostensible authority, presumably to answer the assertion made on behalf of the State that the former Minister had no actual authority to enter into contracts involving the expenditure of more than one million dollars.

  2. The applicants have been aware of this assertion since, at the latest, the beginning of the trial and, I imagine, for some time prior thereto.  The application is made at a very late stage.  If I were reasonably satisfied that the conduct of the case on behalf of the State would not have been different had the amendment been made timeously, then I would be inclined to allow the amendment.  However it is difficult to be so satisfied.  The history of dealings between the parties prior to the alleged contract indicates that on at least one occasion, the question of Cabinet approval had been mentioned and it is, I think, likely that had the issue of ostensible authority been a live one during the conduct of the applicants’ case, the cross-examination of the applicants’ witnesses as to their knowledge of this matter and otherwise as to their knowledge of such limitation may well have been conducted differently.

  3. In those circumstances I consider that the application is made too late and that I cannot be satisfied that the respondent will not be prejudiced by it.  The application is refused.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            18 August 2000

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr N Lucarelli QC
Mr M Conrick
Solicitor for the Applicants: Freehills
Counsel for the First, Third and Fourth Respondents: Mr R V Hanson QC
Mr P Flanagan
Solicitor for the First, Third and FourthRespondents: Crown Law
Date of Hearing: 30 June 2000
Date of Judgment: 30 June 2000
Details
AGLC
Sita Qld Pty Ltd v State of Queensland [2000] FCA 1078
Case
[2000] FCA 1078
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Sita Qld Pty Ltd, an entity involved in the waste management industry, brought a proceeding against the State of Queensland over an alleged breach of contract. The dispute revolved around a tender process for a waste management contract, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had unfairly excluded it from the tender process and failed to adhere to the terms of the contract. The matter was heard by the court to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the agreement and whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim was permissible and whether the defendant's actions during the tender process breached the contract. The court had to examine the tender process, the terms of the contract, and whether the defendant acted in accordance with those terms. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was a valid reason for the defendant to exclude the plaintiff from the tender process.

The court found that the application to amend the statement of claim was not justified as it did not meet the criteria for amendment under the relevant legislation. The court held that the amendment would not have a reasonable prospect of success and would cause significant prejudice to the defendant. The court also found that the defendant had not breached the contract, as the exclusion of the plaintiff from the tender process was within the scope of the agreement and did not constitute an unfair practice. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as the defendant had not acted in breach of the contract.

The court's decision was based on the fact that the amendment to the statement of claim would not have a reasonable prospect of success and would cause significant prejudice to the defendant. The court held that the defendant's actions during the tender process were in line with the contract terms and did not constitute a breach. Therefore, the application to amend the statement of claim was refused, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The orders made by the court were that the application to amend the statement of claim be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to amend the statement of claim be refused.

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

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.