Stroppiana v Mackay Sugar Ltd

Case [2017] QSC 217

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stroppiana & Ors v Mackay Sugar Ltd  [2017] QSC 217

PARTIES:

REX CORRADO STROPPIANA AND ANDREA RUTH STROPPIANA

(first applicant)

SIMON LEE MATTSSON

(second applicant)

COLIN ASH

(third applicant)

v

MACKAY SUGAR LTD ACN 057 463 671

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS5960/17

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2017

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.   IT IS DECLARED THAT THE EXPENSES THE SUBJECT OF THE CHARGE OF $2 PER TONNE OF CANE IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 2 JUNE 2017 ARE NOT EXPENSE ITEMS DEEMED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL SALES OF SUGAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANNEXURE D TO THE CANE SUPPLY AND PROCESSING AGREEMENT.

2.   THE APPLICATION IS OTHERWISE DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – where the Cane Supply and Processing Agreement between the parties is subject to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld) – where the respondent purported to vary provisions of the Cane Supply and Processing Agreement by agreement with bargaining representatives of growers – whether the Cane Supply and Processing Agreement can be varied without agreement and signatures of each individual grower

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – INTERPRETATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS AND OTHER MATTERS – where a Cane Supply and Processing Agreement between the parties provides that “Other expense items that are deemed to be applicable to all sales of sugar” are to be deducted from cane payments under the agreement –whether the respondent may unilaterally deem a charge of $2 per tonne of cane for the operating cost, repair, improvement and maintenance of the respondent's infrastructure to be an expense applicable to all sales of sugar

Sugar Industry Act 1999 (Qld), s 31, s 33, s 33A, s 35

Sugar Industry Reform Act 2004 (Qld)

Clarke v Earl of Dunraven [1897] AC 59, distinguished

Electricity Generating Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640, applied
Mackay Sugar Ltd and anor v Quadrio [2015] QCA 41, discussed

Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1, cited

Mt Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104, applied
Phillips v Ellinson Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 65 CLR 221, cited

Raguz v Sullivan (2000) 50 NSWLR 236, distinguished

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34, cited

COUNSEL:

N Ferrett for the applicants

M Hodge and F Lubett for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wallace & Wallace Lawyers for the applicants

McCullough Robertson for the respondent

  1. Jackson J: The applicants apply for declarations as to the operation of a contract and an injunction to prohibit breach of the contract.  Each of them is a grower of sugar cane in the area of a sugar mill or mills operated by the respondent in the Mackay region of North Queensland.  The…

Continue reading Stroppiana v Mackay Sugar Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stroppiana v Mackay Sugar Ltd [2017] QSC 217
Case
[2017] QSC 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stroppiana brought proceedings against Mackay Sugar Ltd, asserting that the respondent had breached their Cane Supply and Processing Agreement by unilaterally imposing a $2 per tonne of cane charge for operating costs, repair, improvement, and maintenance of infrastructure. Stroppiana argued that the charge was not an expense applicable to all sales of sugar, as required by the agreement, and that the respondent had not complied with the terms of the agreement by seeking the consent of each individual grower. Mackay Sugar Ltd contended that the charge was a legitimate expense under the agreement and that the consent of individual growers was not necessary for such a variation. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Cane Supply and Processing Agreement could be varied without the agreement and signatures of each individual grower and whether the respondent could unilaterally deem the $2 per tonne of cane charge to be an expense applicable to all sales of sugar. The court found that the agreement required the consent of each individual grower for any variation, and since the respondent had not obtained such consent, the charge was not a valid expense under the agreement. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent could not unilaterally deem the charge to be an applicable expense without the necessary consent. Consequently, the court declared that the $2 per tonne of cane charge imposed by the respondent was not an expense item applicable to all sales of sugar under the agreement. The application was dismissed in all other respects.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. IT IS DECLARED THAT THE EXPENSES THE SUBJECT OF THE CHARGE OF $2 PER TONNE OF CANE IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 2 JUNE 2017 ARE NOT EXPENSE ITEMS DEEMED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL SALES OF SUGAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANNEXURE D TO THE CANE SUPPLY AND PROCESSING AGREEMENT.

2. THE APPLICATION IS OTHERWISE DISMISSED.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.