Skandaguru Company Pty Ltd v Core Supply Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1639

Skandaguru Company Pty Ltd v Core Supply Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1639

The first defendant was not permitted to withdraw its admissions because the proceedings had been conducted on the basis that both defendants were parties to the agreements, allowing the amendment would fundamentally change the case at a very late stage, require an adjournment, cause prejudice and disproportionate costs, and it was not shown that the admitted basis was false. On the merits, no term was implied making delivery contingent on the defendants obtaining supply because the defendants were better placed to bear and assess the risk of supply failure and the proposed term would unreasonably allow them to retain the deposit without delivering. The defendants' failure to deliver was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List Proceeding Concerning Breach of Contracts for Supply of COVID 19 Rapid Antigen Test Kits and Damages for Non Delivery / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Application by the First Defendant to Amend Its List Response and Withdraw Admissions Dismissed; Final Judgment Entered Against the First Defendant
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $793,729.71, with the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. The proceedings against the second defendant were stayed as a consequence of its liquidation.
Legal Topics
['late Amendment of Pleadings' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'breach of Contract for Non Delivery of Goods' 'damages Under S 53 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (nsw)' 'terms Implied in Fact' 'reliance Damages' 'recovery of Deposits']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'sale of Goods' 'remedies'] ['late Amendment of Pleadings' 'withdrawal of Admissions' 'breach of Contract for Non Delivery of Goods' 'damages Under S 53 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (nsw)' 'terms Implied in Fact' 'reliance Damages' 'recovery of Deposits']

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

Equity Commercial List Proceeding Concerning Breach of Contracts for Supply of COVID 19 Rapid Antigen Test Kits and Damages for Non Delivery / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Application by the First Defendant to Amend Its List Response and Withdraw Admissions Dismissed; Final Judgment Entered Against the First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be permitted at a late stage to amend its List Response and withdraw admissions that it was a party to the contracts' "Whether a term should be implied into the Third Agreement making the defendants' delivery obligations contingent on obtaining supply of the RAT Kits" 'Whether s 53 of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) applied where the defendants failed to deliver because their supplier failed to supply them' 'Whether the plaintiff could recover the deposits paid as damages for non-delivery']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was not permitted to withdraw its admissions because the proceedings had been conducted on the basis that both defendants were parties to the agreements, allowing the amendment would fundamentally change the case at a very late stage, require an adjournment, cause prejudice and disproportionate costs, and it was not shown that the admitted basis was false. On the merits, no term was implied making delivery contingent on the defendants obtaining supply because the defendants were better placed to bear and assess the risk of supply failure and the proposed term would unreasonably allow them to retain the deposit without delivering. The defendants' failure to deliver was...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $793,729.71, with the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. The proceedings against the second defendant were stayed as a consequence of its liquidation.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $793,729.71;' "The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]