Berry v CCL Secure Ltd

Last updated

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided5 August 2020
Citation(s) [2020] HCA 27
Case history
Prior action(s) [2019] FCAFC 81
[2017] FCA 1546
[2018] FCA 1351
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, & Edelman JJ
Case opinions
appeal allowed
(per Bell, Keane, Nettle JJ)
concurring
(Gageler, Edelman JJ)

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, [1] concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act (an act since repealed and replaced by the Australian Consumer Law, but with provisions worded similar to s82). [1]

Contents

Factual background

The appellants (Benoy Berry) had entered into an agency agreement with the respondent. Under the agreement, the appellants would receive commissions on sales of polymer notes. The agreement provided for its automatic renewal every two years; unless terminated in accordance with its termination clauses.

In early 2008, the respondent induced termination of the agreement by the appellant by means of a false representation.

The appellant sought damages under s82 of the Trade Practices Act, referable to the commissions they would have been owed had the contract not been terminated. The primary judge found that damages should be assessed by reference to the presumed continuation of the agency agreement as automatically renewed every two years up to the date of trial The judge also held that as the respondent had engaged in misleading/deceptive conduct, the respondent could not be heard to complain it had a lawful alternative means of termination it elected not to take. [2]

On appeal the Full Federal Court considered that the primary judge's approach gave insufficient weight to the possibility of lawful termination. It concluded that despite the respondent's conduct; the agreement would have been lawfully terminated on 30 June 2008, dis-entitling the appellant to damages for lack of a causal link between the breach and the harm suffered. [3]

Decision

The Court found unanimously for Benoy Berry, the appellant.

Bell, Keane, Nettle JJ

The majority held that the respondent was not prevented from leading evidence about whether any relevant damages that had been caused by their conduct. The court viewed the damages applicable to s82 of the TPA as compensatory, rather than punitive. They regarded Amann Aviation as authority for the proposition that, ordinarily, the purpose of 'compensatory damages' in the common law is 'fair and adequate compensation', not punishment, and that 'artificial forms of reasoning', are rejected in favor of 'allowing tribunals to give probative force to evidentiary materials as they think fit having regard to all circumstances of the case'. [4] The court wrote:

"Permitting a fraudster to plead and prove a lawful counterfactual which, but for its fraud, the fraudster would have pursued, is not in any sense to permit the fraudster to take advantage of its fraud. As will be explained, it is to do no more than to limit the amount recoverable by the victim to the amount of loss or damage which the victim is shown to have suffered “by” the contravening conduct within the meaning of s 82 of the TPA. That accords with the general principle at common law that a wrongdoer is not required to compensate a victim for loss which the wrongdoer does not cause, even where the cause of action is the tort of deceit." - Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ [5]

Ultimately however, this matter did not determine the case, as the majority found Secure had not proven there was a real possibility it would have otherwise terminated the agency agreement. [6]

The court found that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving what the objective value of the contract would have been, had it not been terminated. That assessment had to take into account events that may have rendered the contract less valuable. [6] [7] It was the court's job to assume that the wrongdoer would have adopted the mode of performance most beneficial to them; and so if the contract was lawfully terminable, it was to be valued accordingly. [6] This does not automatically mean a wrongdoer's right to terminate a contract restricts the damages that can be awarded. The court cited Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd, [8] as authority for the proposition that one must not assume a wrongdoer would cut off legal obligations to the claimant; if greater losses would have occurred due to the extraneous circumstances (such as the need to maintain their reputation). [6]

However, they held that since it was established on the balance of probabilities that the respondent terminated the agency agreement by misleading the appellant, the natural inference was that the respondent would not have been prepared to terminate the agreement by lawful means. Therefore, the respondent carried the burden of proof that their misleading conduct did not give rise to financial damages for the appellant. [9]

As it happened, the respondent did not adduce sufficient evidence to establish that but for their misconduct the relevant damage would have occurred. The court therefore found against the respondent. [1]

Gageler, Edelman JJ

The justices agreed with the orders proposed by the majority, however suggested that the case ought to have been decided on narrower grounds; relating to the manner in which the respondent had set out its pleadings. [10] The defendant at trial had indicated its intention to prove it would have terminated the agency agreement by 30 June 2008 regardless of the conduct; by calling evidence of a Mr Brown. The evidence of Mr Brown was 'thoroughly disbelieved' by the trial judge, and the consequent rejection of the respondent's pleaded defence 'ought to have been the end of the issue'.

As the only action Berry had succeeded in against the respondent was statutory, they regarded the findings of the primary judge findings about the ability of the respondent to be heard; 'couched in the conclusion language of a common law action in deceit (were) an unfortunate distraction'. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breach of contract</span> Type of civil wrong in contract law

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages have to be paid to the aggrieved party by the party breaching the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unconscionability</span> Doctrine in contract law

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anticipatory repudiation</span> Concept in the law of contracts

Anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach is a concept in the law of contracts which describes words or conduct by a contracting party that evinces an intention not to perform or not to be bound by provisions of the agreement that require performance in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<i>Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

Surrogatum is a thing put in the place of another or a substitute. The Surrogatum Principle pertains to a Canadian income tax principle involving a person who suffers harm caused by another and may seek compensation for (a) loss of income, (b) expenses incurred, (c) property destroyed, or (d) personal injury, as well as punitive damages, under the surrogatum principle, the tax consequences of a damage or settlement payment depend on the tax treatment of the item for which the payment is intended to substitute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon</span> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

<i>Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw</i>

Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

Santos Professional Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Igesund and Another is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Foxcroft J, Moosa J and Selikowitz J on 20 September 2002, with judgment delivered on 27 September. Counsel was the appellant was NM Arendse SC ; for the first respondent appeared SP Rosenberg and for the second MA Albertus SC.

<i>Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd is a leading Canadian property law case concerning commercial landlord-tenant relationships decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

<i>AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd, 2014 SCC 12 was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that standardized Canadian jurisprudence with respect to the economic tort of unlawful means.

In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

<i>Reda v Flag Ltd</i>

Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.

<i>Commonwealth v Verwayen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commonwealth v Verwayen, also known as the Voyager case, is a leading case involving estoppel in Australia. Bernard Verwayen sued the Australian government for damages caused by a collision between two ships of the Australian Navy. A representative of the Government initially indicated to Bernard Verwayen that the Government would not raise the statute of limitations as a defence to their negligence. In court however, the Government relied on this defence. While the decision of the High Court was split, a majority of judges found that the Government could not rely on this statement as a defence. Justices Toohey and Gaudron came to this conclusion on the basis that the Government had waived their right to rely on this defence. However, Justices Deane and Dawson came to this conclusion under the doctrine of estoppel, which provides that a defendant can not contradict a previous representation or promise made that has established an assumed state of legal affairs. This case is most frequently referred to in relation to its influence on the doctrine of estoppel.

<i>Comcare v Banerji</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Comcare v Banerji is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by Comcare against former public servant Michaela Banerji, seeking to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal had declared that termination of her employment was not a reasonable administrative action; once regard was had to the implied freedom of political communication.

<i>Clubb v Edwards</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery is a decision of the High Court of Australia. It was a combined hearing of two appeals, raised from the Magistrates Court of Victoria and Tasmania respectively. The appellants, Kathleen Clubb and John Preston; had sought to challenge two laws restricting their conduct near abortion providers, on the ground that the relevant laws were unconstitutional for breach of Australia's freedom of political communication doctrine.

<i>Lewis v ACT</i> Legal case in the High Court of Australia

Lewis v ACT is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The decision is a significant Australian Tort Law ruling for its holdings on the role of damages.

<i>Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41 is an Australian labour law case on the Fair Work Act's section 346 protections against adverse action for participation in industrial activities. It was decided by the High Court of Australia. It was an appeal brought by an Australian labour union against a subsidiary of BHP Billiton named BHP Coal Pty Ltd.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 Judgement Summary (PDF), High Court, 5 August 2020
  2. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1546
  3. ↑ CCL Secure Pty Ltd v Berry [2019] FCAFC 81
  4. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 31
  5. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 27
  6. 1 2 3 4 Barnett, Katy (7 August 2020). "Berry v CCL Secure Ltd | Opinions on High" . Retrieved 10 August 2020.
  7. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 37
  8. ↑ Lavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1966] EWCA Civ 4 , [1967] 1 QB 278 at 295-296.
  9. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 39
  10. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 62
  11. ↑ Berry v CCL Secure Ltd [2020] HCA 27 at para. 63
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.