Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak (No 2) - [2021] ACTSC 319

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 319
Hearing Date:	15 October 2021
DecisionDate:	17 December 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [80]
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Breach of contract – damages for breach of contract require causation – difficulty in assessing loss not a bar to recovery of damages CORPORATIONS – CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS – Where breaches of duties under ss 180, 181, 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were established against the first, second, third and fifth defendants – declarations of contravention under s 1317E of the Corporations Act – orders for compensation under s 1317H of the Corporations Act EQUITY – REMEDIES – Equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty – where account of profits ordered against knowing assistant – open to claim equitable compensation against defaulting fiduciary
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 180(1), 181, 182, 183, 1317E, 1317H Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 501, 502
Cases Cited:	Adler v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] NSWCA 131; 179 FLR 1 Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson [No 2] [2014] WASC 102; 285 FLR 121 Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310 Ancient Orders of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society Ltd v Life Plan Australia Friendly Society Ltd [2018] HCA 43; 265 CLR 1 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v ANU [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6; 200 FCR 296 Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; 244 CLR 427 Parker, In the matter of Purcom No 34 Pty Limited (In Liq) (No 2) [2010] FCA 624 Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak [2021] ACTSC 199 V-Flow Pty Limited v Holyoake Industries (Vic) Pty Limited [2013] FCAFC 16; 296 ALR 418
Texts Cited:	JD Heydon, Heydon on Contract (Lawbook, 2019)
Parties:	Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Gareth Peak (First Defendant) Lachlan Watt (Second Defendant) Nenad Stefanovic (Third Defendant) Dreamtime Supply Company Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) David Glavonjic (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel E Cox SC with A Munro (Plaintiff) B Buckland (Defendants)
Solicitors Mackenzie Workplace Law (Plaintiff) Bradley Allen Love (Defendants)
File Number:	SC 333 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

In my principal judgment, I found the relevant facts and determined that relief should be granted against the fourth defendant: see Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak [2021] ACTSC 199 (Judgment). That relief involved making an order that the fourth defendant, Dreamtime Supply Company Pty Ltd (Dreamtime), account to the plaintiff, Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd (Steadfast), in the sum of $1,187,249.64. The parties were then further heard as to additional relief that should be granted.

The plaintiff proposed a series of orders and declarations sought in relation to each of the other defendants.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] ACTSC 319
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Steadfast ICT Security Pty Ltd v Peak, the plaintiff sought a variety of orders and declarations against five defendants in relation to breaches of contract, fiduciary duty and statutory provisions. The court found against all defendants in relation to various breaches and made a number of orders in favour of the plaintiff. The court rejected the claim for equitable compensation against one defendant on the basis that the causal link between the breach and the loss was not established. In relation to another defendant, the court found that the breach was not linked to the loss of a particular client and rejected the claim for equitable compensation against that defendant. The court found against a third defendant in relation to breaches of contract and fiduciary duty and ordered him to pay compensation pursuant to the Corporations Act. The court found that a fourth defendant breached fiduciary duties but did not order any pecuniary relief against him. Finally, the court found that a fifth defendant breached fiduciary duties and ordered him to pay compensation pursuant to the Corporations Act. The court also ordered that the total amount recoverable by the plaintiff from all defendants, exclusive of costs, was to be $1,187,249.64.

Orders