Management Service Australia Pty Ltd v PM Works Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1743

Management Service Australia Pty Ltd v PM Works Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1743

The evidence supported the existence of a joint venture agreement between PPPM and PM Works regarding CBA and similar projects, and that this agreement was varied in late August/early September 2014 by mutual assent. There was no breach of contract, fiduciary duty, or actionable misleading or unconscionable conduct by PM Works, as the variation was justified by CBA's dissatisfaction with PPPM's services. Accordingly, PPPM's claims failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial List (equity) / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['joint Venture Agreement' 'implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'fiduciary Duties' 'affidavit Evidence' 'pleadings and Amendments']
['contract' 'equity' 'consumer Law'] ['joint Venture Agreement' 'implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'fiduciary Duties' 'affidavit Evidence' 'pleadings and Amendments']

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

Commercial List (equity) / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Existence and terms of a joint venture contract or simple contract between PPPM and PM Works regarding provision of PM and BA training services' 'Whether terms of good faith, joint management, accounting, and benefit-sharing to be implied' 'Whether the contract or joint venture was varied, and validity of that variation' 'Whether contractual rights were terminable at will, on notice, or otherwise' 'Whether fiduciary duties existed and if breached' 'Whether any equitable estoppel or unconscionable or misleading conduct occurred under the Australian Consumer Law' 'Assessment of quantum in the alternative']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence supported the existence of a joint venture agreement between PPPM and PM Works regarding CBA and similar projects, and that this agreement was varied in late August/early September 2014 by mutual assent. There was no breach of contract, fiduciary duty, or actionable misleading or unconscionable conduct by PM Works, as the variation was justified by CBA's dissatisfaction with PPPM's services. Accordingly, PPPM's claims failed.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order that the proceedings be dismissed as against both defendants.' 'Reserve for further consideration the question of costs.' 'Direct each party to serve and deliver written submissions as to the costs order it seeks, with any relevant evidence, by 9 February 2018.' 'Direct each party to serve on the other and...