United Resource Management Pty Ltd v Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd

The dispute before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerned a contractual relationship between United Resource Management Pty Ltd (URM) and Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd (Par Recycling). URM sought to terminate an implied agreement that had continued after the termination of an underlying head contract. Par Recycling contended that URM had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to notify them of the head contract's termination and by representing that the implied agreement remained binding.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the implied agreement between the parties was terminable on reasonable notice, and whether URM's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of consumer law. Specifically, the court had to determine if Par Recycling would have acted differently, such as by entering into a particular subsequent agreement, had URM not failed to notify them of the head contract's termination and continued to represent the implied agreement as being in force.

The Court of Appeal found that the implied agreement, which arose from the parties' conduct after the termination of the head contract, was indeed terminable on reasonable notice. The court reasoned that the parties' continued conduct, despite the termination of the underlying contract, created a new, albeit implied, agreement. This implied agreement, lacking a fixed term, was therefore subject to termination by either party upon giving reasonable notice. The court also considered the consumer law claim, examining whether URM's silence and representations amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct.

The Court of Appeal directed the parties to confer and attempt to agree on the form of final orders to give effect to the court's reasons. If agreement could not be reached, they were to provide their respective proposed orders and short written submissions to the Associate to the President within seven days.