Idameneo (No.123) v Robalino [2009] NSWSC 969

Idameneo (No.123) v Robalino [2009] NSWSC 969

The pleaded variation to require services at Leichhardt was not proved because the April 2003 correspondence did not show a concluded agreement. Dr Robalino breached clauses 8.2(a), 8.2(b) and 8.2(c) by conducting a Dulwich Hill home practice that was not immaterial compared with his Fairfield practice and by failing to work the required overall, evening and weekend hours. Those repeated breaches deprived Idameneo of a substantial part of the contractual benefit and were sufficiently serious to justify termination at general law. Even if the contractual notice under clause 14.2 were ineffective, termination was justified by breaches existing at the time. Idameneo was entitled to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Contract Proceedings Concerning Alleged Breach and Termination of Sale of Practice Deed, With Cross Claim for Repudiation / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $162,567.78; judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs subject to reserved leave.
Legal Topics
['contract Variation' 'breach of Contract' 'termination for Breach' 'intermediate Terms' 'liquidated Damages' 'account of Profits' 'expert Evidence']
['contract Law' 'equity'] ['contract Variation' 'breach of Contract' 'termination for Breach' 'intermediate Terms' 'liquidated Damages' 'account of Profits' 'expert Evidence']

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

Contract Proceedings Concerning Alleged Breach and Termination of Sale of Practice Deed, With Cross Claim for Repudiation / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Sale of Practice Agreement was varied to oblige the defendant to render medical services from the plaintiff's premises at 30 Short St, Leichhardt, as well as from Fairfield and Caringbah." 'Whether the defendant was in serious or fundamental breach of the Sale of Practice Agreement by breaching clauses 8.2(a), 8.2(b), 8.2(c) or 8.2(f), or implied obligations, including by failing to render required hours, rendering services from Dulwich Hill, inducing patients to attend Dulwich Hill, or pretending to be ill while working from Dulwich Hill.' 'Whether the plaintiff validly terminated the Sale of Practice Agreement pursuant to clause 14.2 or otherwise.' 'What damages the plaintiff was entitled to.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an account of profits.' 'Whether the plaintiff repudiated the Sale of Practice Agreement.' 'Whether the defendant was entitled to damages and had proved any damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded variation to require services at Leichhardt was not proved because the April 2003 correspondence did not show a concluded agreement. Dr Robalino breached clauses 8.2(a), 8.2(b) and 8.2(c) by conducting a Dulwich Hill home practice that was not immaterial compared with his Fairfield practice and by failing to work the required overall, evening and weekend hours. Those repeated breaches deprived Idameneo of a substantial part of the contractual benefit and were sufficiently serious to justify termination at general law. Even if the contractual notice under clause 14.2 were ineffective, termination was justified by breaches existing at the time. Idameneo was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $162,567.78; judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs subject to reserved leave.

Orders

  • ['Direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $162,567.78.' 'Direct that the judgment take effect from 23 September 2009.' 'Direct entry of judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.' 'Subject to order (5), order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs costs of the...