Sharp v Cossack Pearls Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 110

Sharp v Cossack Pearls Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 110

Although there was a breach by Cossack in allocating more tags to another contractor than permitted, the breach was not causative of any loss, as the contractor could not have met the quota regardless. The express terms of the agreement did not require the provision of all tags at the start of the season. Alleged misrepresentations were not made out or were non-actionable, and thus no relief could be granted.

Parties
First Appellant: Colin Andrew Sharp; Second Appellant: Colin Andrew Sharp ATF the Sharp Family Trust; First Respondent: Cossack Pearls Pty Ltd ACN 009 212 015; Second Respondent: Dampier Pearling Company ACN 061 740 145; Third Respondent: Lindsay Kevin Brady; Fourth Respondent: Paul John Thomas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Interpretation of Commercial Agreements, Causation of Loss, Termination of Contract
Contract Law Trade Practices Breach of Contract Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Interpretation of Commercial Agreements Causation of Loss Termination of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Andrew Sharp

First Appellant

Colin Andrew Sharp ATF the Sharp Family Trust

Second Appellant

Cossack Pearls Pty Ltd ACN 009 212 015

First Respondent

Dampier Pearling Company ACN 061 740 145

Second Respondent

Lindsay Kevin Brady

Third Respondent

Paul John Thomas

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to provide fishing tags was a breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the breach of contract caused loss to the contractor
  3. 3 Whether alleged representations amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct inducing contractual entry

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a breach by Cossack in allocating more tags to another contractor than permitted, the breach was not causative of any loss, as the contractor could not have met the quota regardless. The express terms of the agreement did not require the provision of all tags at the start of the season. Alleged misrepresentations were not made out or were non-actionable, and thus no relief could be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the costs of the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.