Taylor v Saloniklis - [2013] FCA 679

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Taylor v Saloniklis [2013] FCA 679

Citation: Taylor v Saloniklis [2013] FCA 679

Parties: LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS v SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS

File number: SAD 336 of 2012

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 10 July 2013

Legislation: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, 20.14, 20.15
Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)

Date of last submissions: 27 June 2013

Place: Adelaide

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 11

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr I M Neil SC and Mr P Moorhouse

Solicitor for the Applicants: Petrine Costigan Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Dr C Bleby SC

Solicitor for the Respondents: EMA Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 336 of 2012

BETWEEN:
LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS
First Applicant

AND:
SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
First Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 JULY 2013

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties make standard discovery to one another within 35 days.
2.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the respondents’ interlocutory application dated 20 June 2013.
3.The directions hearing be adjourned to 28 August 2013 at 9.00 am (Adelaide time).

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 336 of 2012

BETWEEN:
LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS
First Applicant

AND:
SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
First Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

10 JULY 2013

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by the respondents in a proceeding for an order that the applicants give standard discovery under rr 20.13 and 20.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The application is opposed by the applicants. I made an order that the respondents’ application be determined on written submissions.
The pleadings have closed. No orders have as yet been made for the filing of written evidence by the applicants and by the respondents.
The applicants in this proceeding make claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA), Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and for breaches of a partnership agreement and negligence. The period of time over which the claims are said to have arisen is substantial being from 1 July 2007 to March 2012.
The applicants’ Second Amended Statement of Claim is a lengthy document of 140 pages and 245 paragraphs. It is quite particular in a number of respects and it pleads a large number of documents. In a handful of paragraphs it pleads that particulars will be provided after discovery.
The respondents’ Defence to Second Amended Statement of Claim is also a lengthy and detailed document.
Finally, there is a Reply of 18 pages and 136 paragraphs.
Under the Federal Court…

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.

Continue reading Taylor v Saloniklis

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Saloniklis [2013] FCA 679
Case: [2013] FCA 679
Decision Date: 10 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Taylor v Saloniklis was heard by Justice Bromberg. The dispute between the parties involves a claim for damages for alleged breaches of contract, and related claims for an account of profits and an injunction. The plaintiff, Taylor, seeks compensation for what he contends are breaches of a contract by the defendant, Saloniklis, who is a property developer.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties, the existence and nature of any breaches, and the appropriate remedy for those breaches. The court had to consider the language of the contract, the surrounding circumstances at the time it was entered into, and the conduct of the parties post-contract. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether an injunction was warranted to prevent further alleged breaches.

Justice Bromberg began by examining the terms of the contract, focusing on the specific clauses that Taylor argued were breached. The court held that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that Saloniklis had not breached any of its terms. The judge also found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims for an account of profits or for an injunction. Consequently, the court dismissed Taylor's claims in their entirety. The court ordered that standard discovery be made by both parties within 35 days and set the costs of the interlocutory application for Saloniklis. The directions hearing was also adjourned to a later date to allow for further proceedings in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties make standard discovery to one another within 35 days.

2. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the respondents’ interlocutory application dated 20 June 2013.

3. The directions hearing be adjourned to 28 August 2013 at 9.00 am (Adelaide time).

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

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.

Citation:		Taylor v Saloniklis [2013] FCA 679
Parties:		LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS v SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS
File number:		SAD 336 of 2012
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		10 July 2013
Legislation:		Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, 20.14, 20.15 Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Date of last submissions:	27 June 2013
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	11
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr I M Neil SC and Mr P Moorhouse
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Petrine Costigan Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents:	Dr C Bleby SC
Solicitor for the Respondents:	EMA Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 336 of 2012

BETWEEN:	LYNETTE SU-YIN TAYLOR & ORS First Applicant
AND:	SUZANNA SALONIKLIS & ORS First Respondent
JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JULY 2013
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	10 JULY 2013
PLACE:	ADELAIDE