RecycleIT Now Ltd v Parrani Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 305

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RecycleIT Now Ltd v Parrani Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 305 Hearing dates: 13 July 2022 Date of orders: 1 August 2022 Decision date: 01 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Ainslie-Wallace ADCJ Decision: See [53] Catchwords: JUDGMENT- breach of agreement- sale of goods. Cases Cited: Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 Category: Principal judgment Parties: RecycleIT Now Ltd Parrani Group Pty Ltd Representation: Self-represented File Number(s): 2021/192011 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. The plaintiff sues the defendant for breach of an agreement relating to the provision of goods by the defendant and for which the plaintiff paid in advance. The plaintiff contends that while goods were delivered, their ascribed value was less than the price paid and seeks repayment from the defendant of the difference between the price paid and the value of the goods received. 2. The plaintiff company, RecycleIT Now Ltd deals in the recycling, refurbishing and reuse of outdated information technology equipment. As part of that business, from time to time it purchases outdated equipment already refurbished to sell on to its customers. The company is registered and conducts its business from the United Kingdom. 3. The defendant company, Parrani Group Pty Ltd is registered in Australia and it acts, in effect, as a broker of refurbished information technology equipment, purchasing the equipment from various suppliers and selling it on to third party purchasers. 4. There was no dispute as to how the defendant conducts its business. The defendant receives information from its various suppliers about what refurbished equipment is available to be purchased by third parties. This information is then shared by the defendant on a number of online forums which are accessed by prospective purchasers. 5. An interested purchaser contacts the defendant and identifies which goods it wishes to purchase. The defendant and purchaser then agree on a price for the goods identified. The defendant then issues what was referred to as a "pro forma" invoice in the amount of the agreed purchase price. This invoice must be paid in full before the goods are ordered, packed and shipped to the purchaser. 6. Once the payment is received, the defendant's supplier packs and ships the goods to the purchaser. The supplier raises an air waybill in relation to the goods shipped which is emailed to the purchaser by the defendant together with a final invoice reflecting the goods shipped. 7. On delivery to the purchaser, the consignment is assessed for any relevant taxes or duties payable based on the air waybill which the purchaser pays, and collects the goods. 8. In about mid May 2020 the Managing Director of the plaintiff, Robert Doherty approached the defendant about the supply of refurbished equipment to sell on to the plaintiff's customers in the UK. The dealings between Mr Doherty and Usman Paracha, the Managing Director of the defendant, were conducted by WhatsApp or Linkedin, copies of which were in evidence. After preliminary matters were sorted out, the plaintiff began placing orders with the defendant for the provision of equipment. 9. Between 3 June 2020 and 30 October 2020, the plaintiff says that in various tranches it placed orders with the defendant to the value of £827,925. The defendant sent to the plaintiff 16 pro forma invoices in respect of the orders in a total amount of £827,925. Each pro forma invoice was paid in full by the plaintiff before the goods were delivered. 10. In this case, the refurbished goods were provided by a supplier of the defendant in the United Arab Emirates. The goods identified in the 16 preliminary invoices were shipped to the plaintiff by the defendant's supplier. The supplier raised an air waybill in respect of each consignment which was emailed to the plaintiff by the defendant. The goods having arrived in the United Kingdom, VAT and other taxes were levied on the goods by reference to the value of the goods in the consignment as identified by the air waybill. The VAT and other charges were paid by the plaintiff and the goods collected. 11. At about the time that the goods were consigned, the defendant created and sent to the plaintiff a final invoice which itemised the goods in the consignment and their value. 12. Oliver Birch, the Financial Director of the plaintiff, said that on receiving each consignment of goods, he checked each against the air waybill and the final invoice to ensure that what was delivered was what was identified in the final invoice. He said that he would confirm receipt of the shipment and the contents with a director of the defendant, Mr Laurain Durrani. That communication was by emails, copies of which were attached to Mr Birch's affidavit. On one or two occasions Mr Birch noted discrepancies between what was in the final invoice and what was shipped and he raised those matters directly with Mr Durrani. 13. Mr Birch said that the value of the goods shipped as shown in the final invoice tallied with the value of the goods identified in the air waybill raised by the supplier. 14. Of the 16 invoices in respect of which the plaintiff paid £827,925 in advance, the relevant air waybills and final invoices referrable to the delivered goods totalled £589,560. 15. Mr Birch said that on becoming aware of the shortfall, he and Mr Doherty asked the defendant to send further goods to, in effect, make up the difference between the amounts paid on the preliminary invoices and the value of the goods shipped or, failing that, for the defendant to repay the difference to the plaintiff. Their efforts were unsuccessful. 16. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant owes it the difference between the amounts paid on the initial invoices and the final invoices, some £238,364 together with interest 17. The defendant disputes the plaintiff's contentions both as to the value of the goods ordered and as to the value of the goods received.