Premier Protection Agency (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2022] NSWSC 374

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Premier Protection Agency (Aust) Pty Ltd v Australian Securities Investments Commission [2022] NSWSC 374 Hearing dates: 25 May 2021, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 June 2021 Date of orders: 1 April 2022 Decision date: 01 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. Cross claim for misleading and deceptive conduct made out and parties to provide short minutes of order. Plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. Liberty to apply granted for 14 days should either party seek a special costs order. Catchwords: CONTRACT - economic duress – unconscionable conduct – the plaintiff supplies security vetting services to the defendant pursuant to a contract – plaintiff alleges the defendant's officers forced the plaintiff to accept the termination of the contract by threatening conduct that was unconscionable and that amounted to economic duress – defendant denies its officers engaging in the conduct alleged – whether the defendant's officers engaged in conduct alleged – whether the conduct was unconscionable or amounted to economic duress – what consequences flow from a finding that the defendant's officers engaged in unconscionable conduct amounting to economic duress. HELD: – the defendant's officers did not engage either in unconscionable conduct or conduct amounting to economic duress.

CONSUMER LAW – Misleading or deceptive conduct – reliance – where the plaintiff claims economic duress and the defendant cross-claims for misleading and deceptive conduct – whether the cross defendant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct - the cross-defendant fails to disclose Australian Tax Office debts of an associated entity to the cross-claimant – whether the cross defendant misrepresented the reasons for a company restructure – the cross-claimant enters negotiations with the cross-defendant – whether the cross claimant relied upon the cross defendants' misleading and deceptive conduct – whether any relief should be given in light of the dismissal of the plaintiff/cross-defendant's claim. Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law, s 237 Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, s 44 Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 Cases Cited: Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) NSWLR 40 Macquarie Bank Ltd v Sixty Fourth Throne Pty Ltd (1998) 3 VR 133 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Premier Protection Agency (Aust) Pty Ltd Defendant: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: R. Marshall SC; D. Aquilina Defendant: A. Mitchelmore SC; E. Ball