United Resource Management Pty Ltd v Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 236

United Resource Management Pty Ltd v Par Recycling Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 236

The post-termination conduct of URM and Par objectively supported an implied agreement terminable on reasonable notice, not one whose duration depended on the KEE agreement. URM's failure to disclose the termination of the KES and Somersby agreements, together with its unqualified assertions that the Somersby agreement remained binding, was misleading or deceptive. However, Par did not prove that the misleading conduct caused it to enter the CDS Agreement: the objective probabilities showed Par entered that agreement to secure higher gate fees and a CDS sharing arrangement with the councils, and the termination of the Somersby agreement provided no good reason to depart from those...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division / Court of Appeal Decision; Parties Directed to Confer on Final Orders
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal upheld in part; final orders to be settled after conferral by the parties.
Legal Topics
['implied Contract' 'termination on Reasonable Notice' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'container Deposit Scheme Refund Sharing' 'causation and Counterfactual Loss' 'restitution for Mistake' 'unjust Enrichment']
['contracts' 'consumer Law'] ['implied Contract' 'termination on Reasonable Notice' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'container Deposit Scheme Refund Sharing' 'causation and Counterfactual Loss' 'restitution for Mistake' 'unjust Enrichment']

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

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division / Court of Appeal Decision; Parties Directed to Confer on Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the implied agreement between URM and Par after termination of the Somersby agreement was terminable on reasonable notice.' 'Whether URM and Mr Johnston engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to inform Par of the termination of the KES and Somersby agreements and by representing that the Somersby agreement remained binding.' 'Whether, but for that misleading or deceptive conduct, Par would not have entered into the CDS Agreement.' 'Whether URM was entitled under the CDS Agreement to a 40% share of CDS refund payments only for recyclable waste received between 1 February 2018 and 30 November 2018.']

Ratio Decidendi

The post-termination conduct of URM and Par objectively supported an implied agreement terminable on reasonable notice, not one whose duration depended on the KEE agreement. URM's failure to disclose the termination of the KES and Somersby agreements, together with its unqualified assertions that the Somersby agreement remained binding, was misleading or deceptive. However, Par did not prove that the misleading conduct caused it to enter the CDS Agreement: the objective probabilities showed Par entered that agreement to secure higher gate fees and a CDS sharing arrangement with the councils, and the termination of the Somersby agreement provided no good reason to depart from those...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal upheld in part; final orders to be settled after conferral by the parties.

Orders

  • ['Direct that the parties confer and if possible agree as to the form of the final orders to be made to give effect to these reasons.' 'The parties are to provide to the Associate to the President within 7 days of the making of this direction either the agreed final form of orders or their respective versions of...