White v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd t/as Philips Healthcare

The appeal concerned a dispute between White and Philips Electronics Australia Ltd trading as Philips Healthcare. White alleged an oral variation to a contract, which Philips denied. The primary court had found that no such oral variation had occurred.

The appeal required the Court of Appeal to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the parties had not orally varied their contract, particularly in light of a contractual clause stipulating that any variation must be in writing. The court also considered the principles applicable to an appeal challenging a factual finding made by the primary judge concerning a disputed conversation.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's factual finding, holding that the evidence did not support the existence of an oral variation to the contract. The court applied the well-established principles governing appeals against findings of fact, which require an appellant to demonstrate that the primary judge's finding was demonstrably wrong. The contractual provision requiring variations to be in writing was a significant factor in the court's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and White was ordered to pay Philips' costs on a solicitor/client basis.