Moresload Pty Limited v Hebden Quarries Pty Limited [2012] NSWDC 28

Moresload Pty Limited v Hebden Quarries Pty Limited [2012] NSWDC 28

The parties discussed, agreed upon and signed the written terms of the final contract on 27 June 2008, so the contract bound them. Objectively construed, including clause 4.4, Recital E and clause 23.6, the contract obliged the defendant to provide the plaintiff with between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes of material from Hebden Quarry or Steelstone for crushing. The defendant's conduct from August 2008 showed no intention to perform that obligation and constituted breach. Clause 20.2, construed in context and contra proferentem, did not exclude liability for losses arising from breach of contract.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Contract Proceedings Concerning Materials Processing Work at Hebden Quarry and Steelstone / Principal Judgment; Verdict for Plaintiff With Quantum, Interest, Costs and Possible Transfer Adjourned
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff; proceedings adjourned for determination of quantum, interest, costs and possible transfer to the Supreme Court.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract' 'construction of Contract' 'surrounding Circumstances and Ambiguity' 'breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'exclusion Clauses' 'damages for Loss of Profit']
['contract Law'] ['formation of Contract' 'construction of Contract' 'surrounding Circumstances and Ambiguity' 'breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'exclusion Clauses' 'damages for Loss of Profit']

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 Proceedings Concerning Materials Processing Work at Hebden Quarry and Steelstone / Principal Judgment; Verdict for Plaintiff With Quantum, Interest, Costs and Possible Transfer Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the parties entered into any contract' 'If a contract was formed, whether its terms obliged the defendant to provide feed rock for processing' 'Whether the defendant breached or repudiated the contract' 'The extent of any loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff' "Whether clause 20.2 excluded liability for the plaintiff's claimed losses" "Whether the plaintiff's forensic accountant's methodology for assessing loss was acceptable"]

Ratio Decidendi

The parties discussed, agreed upon and signed the written terms of the final contract on 27 June 2008, so the contract bound them. Objectively construed, including clause 4.4, Recital E and clause 23.6, the contract obliged the defendant to provide the plaintiff with between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes of material from Hebden Quarry or Steelstone for crushing. The defendant's conduct from August 2008 showed no intention to perform that obligation and constituted breach. Clause 20.2, construed in context and contra proferentem, did not exclude liability for losses arising from breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff; proceedings adjourned for determination of quantum, interest, costs and possible transfer to the Supreme Court.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff.' "The proceedings are adjourned to a date to be fixed to determine the quantum of the judgment to be entered in the plaintiff's favour and to deal with issues of interest and costs and, if necessary and permissible, transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court."]