Miller Heiman Pty Ltd v Sales Principles Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 106

Miller Heiman Pty Ltd v Sales Principles Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 106

The appellant's defence of conventional estoppel succeeded because both parties adopted a common assumption that the respondent would not claim fees referable to NAB revenue, and the appellant acted in reliance by not terminating the Secondment Agreement, thereby incurring detriment if the respondent were allowed to depart from the assumption. The primary judge failed to address this defence, but the appellate court determined all relevant issues on the evidence, with no necessity for new trial as witness demeanour was not critical. Judgment for the appellant was appropriate as the respondent's claim for fees must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, judgment for appellant
Legal Topics
['conventional Estoppel' 'new Trial Procedure' 'interest on Judgment' 'estoppel by Convention']
['contract Law' 'estoppel' 'civil Procedure'] ['conventional Estoppel' 'new Trial Procedure' 'interest on Judgment' 'estoppel by Convention']

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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's defence of conventional estoppel was available and should succeed" 'Whether the primary judge erred in failing to determine the conventional estoppel defence and by declining to order a new trial' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to interest from the date fees became payable']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's defence of conventional estoppel succeeded because both parties adopted a common assumption that the respondent would not claim fees referable to NAB revenue, and the appellant acted in reliance by not terminating the Secondment Agreement, thereby incurring detriment if the respondent were allowed to depart from the assumption. The primary judge failed to address this defence, but the appellate court determined all relevant issues on the evidence, with no necessity for new trial as witness demeanour was not critical. Judgment for the appellant was appropriate as the respondent's claim for fees must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, judgment for appellant

Orders

  • ["Dismiss, with costs, the appellant's application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Sorby ADCJ of 17 August 2016 dismissing the appellant's motion for a new trial." 'Allow the appeal from the judgments of Sorby ADCJ of 27 May 2016 and 17 August 2016.' 'Dismiss the cross-appeal from the judgment...