Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 164
Leave to raise new grounds on appeal regarding the lawfulness and reasonableness of the first direction was refused as the issues were not raised at trial, with no adequate explanation, and to allow them would prejudice the respondent; it would be contrary to the due administration of justice. As a result, the appeal on liability (SAD 49 of 2024) was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal the costs order (SAD 66 of 2024) was dismissed because the primary judge's evaluative findings on the reasonableness of rejecting settlement offers were open to him on the evidence and involved no error of principle warranting appellate interference.
- Parties
- Appellant in SAD 49 of 2024 / Respondent in SAD 66 of 2024: Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust; Appellant in SAD 49 of 2024 / Respondent in SAD 66 of 2024: Warren Tredrea; Respondent in SAD 49 of 2024 / Applicant in SAD 66 of 2024: Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 December 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal and Leave Application / Full Court Appellate Judgment Following Hearing of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal in SAD 49 of 2024 dismissed; application for leave to appeal in SAD 66 of 2024 dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Lawful and Reasonable Directions, Raising New Grounds on Appeal, Contract Termination, Offers to Settle, Costs Orders Under Independent Contractors Act 2006 (cth)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust
Appellant in SAD 49 of 2024 / Respondent in SAD 66 of 2024
Warren Tredrea
Appellant in SAD 49 of 2024 / Respondent in SAD 66 of 2024
Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd
Respondent in SAD 49 of 2024 / Applicant in SAD 66 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Leave Application / Full Court Appellate Judgment Following Hearing of Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the primary judge erred by holding the respondent’s termination of the services agreement was authorised and not a breach or repudiation of contract
- 2 Whether the directions given by Channel 9 were reasonable and lawful under the contract
- 3 Whether leave should be granted to raise new issues/grounds on appeal which were not raised at trial
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to raise new grounds on appeal regarding the lawfulness and reasonableness of the first direction was refused as the issues were not raised at trial, with no adequate explanation, and to allow them would prejudice the respondent; it would be contrary to the due administration of justice. As a result, the appeal on liability (SAD 49 of 2024) was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal the costs order (SAD 66 of 2024) was dismissed because the primary judge's evaluative findings on the reasonableness of rejecting settlement offers were open to him on the evidence and involved no error of principle warranting appellate interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal in SAD 49 of 2024 dismissed; application for leave to appeal in SAD 66 of 2024 dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to raise grounds 1A, 1B, 5, 5B.2 and 5C.2 of the amended notice of appeal for the first time on appeal in SAD 49 of 2024 is refused.
- The appeal in SAD 49 of 2024 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment