Antzen Pty Ltd v Steven James Howe Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 124

Antzen Pty Ltd v Steven James Howe Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 124

Mastercraft breached cl 2.1(f) by failing to pay the required $40,000 instalments when due. Although the contractual time stipulation was not itself essential, the gross and protracted delay, coupled with Mastercraft's conduct showing payment would not be made voluntarily from progress payment funds, amounted to repudiation and entitled the plaintiffs to terminate on 22 July 2011. Termination did not make the full $270,000 balance immediately payable, because termination for breach operates only for the future and does not restore the parties to their pre-contract position. The first plaintiff was instead entitled to damages assessed by valuing the contractual rights lost, which the Court...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Claim for Breach, Termination and Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the first plaintiff against the third defendant for $75,000; judgment for the first and second defendants against the plaintiffs; costs orders made accordingly.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'termination' 'damages' 'failure to Pay Moneys Owing' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'termination' 'damages' 'failure to Pay Moneys Owing' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Claim for Breach, Termination and Damages / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants breached cl 2.1(f) of the agreement made on 3 May 2010.' 'Whether the defendants repudiated the agreement by their breach and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to terminate the agreement.' 'Whether the balance of the $350,000 debt, in the sum of $270,000, became payable on termination.' 'What damages, if any, the first plaintiff was entitled to recover.' 'Which defendant was liable to pay any amount awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mastercraft breached cl 2.1(f) by failing to pay the required $40,000 instalments when due. Although the contractual time stipulation was not itself essential, the gross and protracted delay, coupled with Mastercraft's conduct showing payment would not be made voluntarily from progress payment funds, amounted to repudiation and entitled the plaintiffs to terminate on 22 July 2011. Termination did not make the full $270,000 balance immediately payable, because termination for breach operates only for the future and does not restore the parties to their pre-contract position. The first plaintiff was instead entitled to damages assessed by valuing the contractual rights lost, which the Court...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first plaintiff against the third defendant for $75,000; judgment for the first and second defendants against the plaintiffs; costs orders made accordingly.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first plaintiff against the third defendant for the sum of $75,000.' 'Judgment for the first and second defendants against the plaintiffs.' "Order the third defendant pay the first plaintiff's costs." "Order the plaintiffs pay the first and second defendants' costs. These costs not to include an...