Stroppiana v Mackay Sugar Ltd

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.