Product Development Solutions Australia Pty Ltd v Parametric Technology Corporation [2012] NSWCA 211

Product Development Solutions Australia Pty Ltd v Parametric Technology Corporation [2012] NSWCA 211

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had insufficient prospects of showing error in the primary judge's conclusion that there was no arguable equitable set-off. The alleged misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct concerned business opportunities and leads within the reseller relationship, but it was not alleged to have induced the reseller agreement, the orders for the products sued upon, or any inability to resell or realise the value of those products. The only connection was the broader reseller relationship and the alleged impact on the applicant's ability to pay, which was insufficient to impeach the respondent's claim for unpaid software products.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'equitable Set Off' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'software Reseller Agreement']
['procedure' 'equity' 'contract' 'trade Practices'] ['summary Judgment' 'equitable Set Off' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'software Reseller Agreement']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant had an arguable defence of equitable set-off to the respondent's claim for goods sold and delivered." "Whether the applicant's cross-claim for misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct had a sufficient connection with the respondent's claim to impeach that claim." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court summary judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had insufficient prospects of showing error in the primary judge's conclusion that there was no arguable equitable set-off. The alleged misleading or deceptive and unconscionable conduct concerned business opportunities and leads within the reseller relationship, but it was not alleged to have induced the reseller agreement, the orders for the products sued upon, or any inability to resell or realise the value of those products. The only connection was the broader reseller relationship and the alleged impact on the applicant's ability to pay, which was insufficient to impeach the respondent's claim for unpaid software products.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' "Applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application."]