A ROYALE AND CO (AUST) PTY LIMITED v HAROLD SCRUBY CONSULTANCIES PTY LIMITED [1988] NSWCA 2

A ROYALE AND CO (AUST) PTY LIMITED v HAROLD SCRUBY CONSULTANCIES PTY LIMITED [1988] NSWCA 2

The trial judge correctly implied a term for reasonable notice into a contract of indefinite duration between the parties, following established authority. The failure of the appellant to cross-examine the respondent on letters which, it was later argued, were inconsistent with his evidence, invoked the rule in Browne v Dunn and justified the judge's refusal to allow the documents to contradict the respondent's evidence. The assessment of a four-month notice period and related damages was not shown to be erroneous. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: A Royale & Co (Aust) Pty Limited; Respondent: Harold Scruby Consultancies Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From District Court to New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms (reasonable Notice), Contracts of Indefinite Duration, Admissibility of Evidence, Rule in Browne V Dunn, Measure of Damages, Appeals Procedure
Contract Law Civil Procedure Implied Terms (reasonable Notice) Contracts of Indefinite Duration Admissibility of Evidence Rule in Browne V Dunn Measure of Damages Appeals Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Royale & Co (Aust) Pty Limited

Appellant

Harold Scruby Consultancies Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From District Court to New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a term as to reasonable notice should be implied in a contract of indefinite duration for provision of managerial services;
  2. 2 Admissibility and probative value of correspondence (Exhibit F) regarding the terms of the agreement;
  3. 3 Effect of failure to cross-examine on documentary evidence under the rule in Browne v Dunn;

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly implied a term for reasonable notice into a contract of indefinite duration between the parties, following established authority. The failure of the appellant to cross-examine the respondent on letters which, it was later argued, were inconsistent with his evidence, invoked the rule in Browne v Dunn and justified the judge's refusal to allow the documents to contradict the respondent's evidence. The assessment of a four-month notice period and related damages was not shown to be erroneous. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.