Mirrorcity Pty Ltd v SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd;; SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd v Mirrorcity Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 32

Mirrorcity Pty Ltd v SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd;; SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd v Mirrorcity Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 32

Mirrorcity Pty Ltd failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and absent expert evidence, that SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd breached the contract or that traffic declined due to SEO's conduct; thus its primary claim fails. However, the contract's requirement of 30 business days' notice to avoid rollover was found to be an unfair term under the Australian Consumer Law, so SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd cannot recover $24,000 plus GST for a second term. No special circumstances justify a costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Consumer and Commercial Division Matter (contract Dispute) / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Mirrorcity Pty Ltd's claim dismissed; SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd's cross-claim for $24,000 plus GST dismissed; declaration that Mirrorcity Pty Ltd not liable for $24,000 plus GST under contract; each party to pay own costs.
Legal Topics
['search Engine Optimisation Services' 'breach of Contract' 'unfair Contract Terms' 'australian Consumer Law' 'costs in Tribunal']
['contract Law' 'consumer Law'] ['search Engine Optimisation Services' 'breach of Contract' 'unfair Contract Terms' 'australian Consumer Law' 'costs in Tribunal']

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

Consumer and Commercial Division Matter (contract Dispute) / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd breach the contract with Mirrorcity Pty Ltd for SEO services?' 'Did Mirrorcity Pty Ltd validly terminate the contract and avoid liability for a second term?' "Was the contract's requirement of 30 business days' notice to terminate an unfair term under the Australian Consumer Law?" 'Is SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd entitled to $24,000 plus GST for a second term under the contract?' 'Are special circumstances present warranting an award of costs?']

Ratio Decidendi

Mirrorcity Pty Ltd failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities and absent expert evidence, that SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd breached the contract or that traffic declined due to SEO's conduct; thus its primary claim fails. However, the contract's requirement of 30 business days' notice to avoid rollover was found to be an unfair term under the Australian Consumer Law, so SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd cannot recover $24,000 plus GST for a second term. No special circumstances justify a costs order.

Court Disposition

Mirrorcity Pty Ltd's claim dismissed; SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd's cross-claim for $24,000 plus GST dismissed; declaration that Mirrorcity Pty Ltd not liable for $24,000 plus GST under contract; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • ['In GEN 18/45782, declaration under section 79O Fair Trading Act NSW 1987 that Mirrorcity Pty Ltd is not liable to SEO North Sydney Pty Ltd for $24,000 plus GST.' 'Balance of GEN 18/45782 dismissed.' 'GEN 18/46966 dismissed.' 'Each party to pay its own costs for both applications.']