NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Strategic Communications Management Pty Ltd v Techfront Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 847 Hearing dates: 15, 16, 17, 18 June 2020 Decision date: 01 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant, the third defendant, and the fourth defendant for: (1) $2,370,164. (2) $3,865,460. Catchwords: CONTRACT – EQUITY – ESTOPPEL – Claim against guarantors for moneys due under a Share Purchase Deed and for damages for failure to pay – Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages significantly in excess of the amount due because it had a back-to-back liability to a third party for the amount and entered into a disadvantageous settlement with the third party – Guarantors allege that they and the principal debtor were discharged by agreement or that the plaintiff is estopped from asserting a claim against the principal debtor and the guarantors because the plaintiff represented that the principal debtor would be discharged upon certain conditions which were met and upon which the principal debtor and the guarantors relied – HELD – Agreement and representation not established – No detriment to found an estoppel established – HELD – Damages beyond amount of payment due not established – In addition, settlement not reasonable – Verdict for the plaintiff Legislation Cited: Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691 M.K. & J.A. Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 39 Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Troulis v Vamvoukakis [1998] NSWCA 237 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Strategic Communications Management Pty Ltd - Plaintiff Techfront Australia Pty Ltd - First Defendant Global Sports Commerce Pte Ltd - Second Defendant Techfront International Fze - Third Defendant Technology Frontiers (India) Private Limited - Fourth Defendant Representation: Counsel: J. Burnett - Plaintiff M.S. Muralidharan (Director) - Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate