Skandaguru Company Pty Ltd v Core Supply Australia Pty Ltd

Skandaguru Company Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Core Supply Australia Pty Ltd, alleging breaches of contract and seeking damages for the failure to supply COVID-19 rapid antigen test kits. The dispute also involved an application to amend pleadings to withdraw an admission that the second defendant was party to the contracts. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed damages for the non-delivery of goods under section 53 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) and sought reliance damages for deposits paid. The plaintiff also argued that the contracts were contingent on the defendants obtaining supply, and therefore, an implied term should be recognised.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to amend the pleadings to withdraw an admission regarding the second defendant's involvement in the contracts and whether an implied term regarding the contingency of supply should be recognised. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the non-delivery of goods. The court considered the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, the circumstances under which terms may be implied in fact, and the established criteria for assessing damages for breach of contract.

The court held that the application to amend the pleadings was untimely, as it was made after the close of discovery and when the case was proceeding towards trial. The court noted that the amendment sought to withdraw an admission that had been made without prejudice, and allowing such an amendment would be unfair to the defendants. Regarding the implied term, the court found that there was no basis to imply a term that the delivery of goods was contingent on the defendants obtaining supply. The court observed that the contracts explicitly stated the obligations of the parties without any reference to supply contingencies. As for damages, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the deposits paid as reliance damages under section 53 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW).

The court ordered that the application to amend the pleadings be dismissed. The court also ruled that no implied term regarding the contingency of supply should be recognised in the contracts. Finally, the court awarded the plaintiff damages for the non-delivery of goods, including the recovery of deposits paid.