Ezy-Fit Engineering Group Pty Limited v Microm Nominees Pty Limited (No 3) [2024] FCA 1415

Ezy-Fit Engineering Group Pty Limited v Microm Nominees Pty Limited (No 3) [2024] FCA 1415

Given the circumstances and lack of prejudice, the Court acted as if Ezy-Fit had amended its pleading to seek damages against both respondents jointly, instead of requiring an election, and awarded quantum accordingly. Orders were made reflecting the agreed sums and the resolution of inconsistency. Unresolved claims were dismissed. Procedural programming orders for costs submissions were set with page limits as determined by the Court.

Parties
First Applicant: Ezy-Fit Engineering Group Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Ezy-Fit Marine Pty Limited; First Respondent: Microm Nominees Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Fabryka Automatow Tokarskich We Wroclawiu SA; Cross Claimant: Fabryka Automatow Tokarskich We Wroclawiu SA; Cross Respondent: Microm Nominees Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance / Judgment on Quantum; Post Liability Determination; Supplementary to Liability Reasons
Outcome
Judgment for first applicant as specified; quantum awarded; other claims dismissed; programming orders for costs submissions made.
Legal Topics
Damages, Breach of Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Inconsistency in Pleading, Orders on Quantum, Costs
Commercial Law Consumer Law Practice and Procedure Damages Breach of Contract Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Inconsistency in Pleading Orders on Quantum +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ezy-Fit Engineering Group Pty Limited

First Applicant

Ezy-Fit Marine Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Microm Nominees Pty Limited

First Respondent

Fabryka Automatow Tokarskich We Wroclawiu SA

Second Respondent

Fabryka Automatow Tokarskich We Wroclawiu SA

Cross Claimant

Microm Nominees Pty Limited

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial and Corporations Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance / Judgment on Quantum; Post Liability Determination; Supplementary to Liability Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first applicant is entitled to damages for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant is entitled to damages for misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law
  3. 3 How inconsistent pleadings on liability between respondents should be addressed

Ratio Decidendi

Given the circumstances and lack of prejudice, the Court acted as if Ezy-Fit had amended its pleading to seek damages against both respondents jointly, instead of requiring an election, and awarded quantum accordingly. Orders were made reflecting the agreed sums and the resolution of inconsistency. Unresolved claims were dismissed. Procedural programming orders for costs submissions were set with page limits as determined by the Court.

Court Disposition

Judgment for first applicant as specified; quantum awarded; other claims dismissed; programming orders for costs submissions made.

Orders

  • Judgment for first applicant against first respondent for damages for breach of contract: $772,435 plus interest $111,517 (total $883,952)
  • Judgment for first applicant against first respondent for damages for breach of s 18 ACL: $115,865 plus interest $16,728 (total $132,593)