MCG Group Pty Ltd v Ftrus Pty Ltd (Formerly Fortrus Pty Ltd) [2016] FCA 697

MCG Group Pty Ltd v Ftrus Pty Ltd (Formerly Fortrus Pty Ltd) [2016] FCA 697

The Court found that, on the probabilities, in or about 26 June 2013, Bill and Paul McDonald made an oral agreement by telephone under which MCG Group (Bill McDonald) would pay the tax instalments and Ftrus/Paul McDonald would reimburse 37.5% monthly. The conduct of the parties (including actual reimbursement payments) corroborated this agreement; Paul McDonald repudiated the arrangement in April 2014; up to then, the respondents were obliged to contribute their share, and failed to do so, entitling the applicant to judgment for the claimed amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Applicant
Legal Topics
['consideration of Oral Contract' 'reimbursement' 'payments in Respect of Tax Liabilities' "shareholders' Obligations"]
['contracts' 'commercial Law'] ['consideration of Oral Contract' 'reimbursement' 'payments in Respect of Tax Liabilities' "shareholders' Obligations"]

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

Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an oral contract was entered regarding payment and reimbursement for a company's tax liability" 'Whether payments by the respondents to the applicant were made pursuant to a binding agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that, on the probabilities, in or about 26 June 2013, Bill and Paul McDonald made an oral agreement by telephone under which MCG Group (Bill McDonald) would pay the tax instalments and Ftrus/Paul McDonald would reimburse 37.5% monthly. The conduct of the parties (including actual reimbursement payments) corroborated this agreement; Paul McDonald repudiated the arrangement in April 2014; up to then, the respondents were obliged to contribute their share, and failed to do so, entitling the applicant to judgment for the claimed amount.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Applicant

Orders

  • ['Judgment is given for the applicant against the respondents in an amount of $673,210.38.' 'The parties are to file within 7 days short submissions in relation to the question of the disposition of the costs of and incidental to the proceeding including reserved costs.']