New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Graham Leonard Brand & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia ) Limited & Ors, Christopher Gerard Kelliher & Ors v Digi-Tech (Australia) Limited & Ors [2002] NSWSC 416 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50169/99; 50087/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 6/5/02, 7/5/02, 8/5/02, 9/5/02, 10/5/02. 13/5/02, 14/5/02, 15/5/02, 16/5/02, 17/5/02, 20/5/02, 21/5/02, 22/5/02, 23/5/02, 24/5/02, 27/5/02, 28/5/02, 29/5/02, 30/5/02, 31/5/02, 3/6/02, 4/6/02, 11/6/02, 12/6/02, 13,6/02, 14/6/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 August 2002 Graham Leonard Brand & Ors (Plaintiffs) Christopher Gerard Kelliher & Ors (Plaintiffs) PARTIES : Dig-Tech (Australia) Limited (1st Defendant) Digi-Tech Equities Limited (2nd Defendant) Digi-Tech Communications (3rd Defendant) John Anthony Reid (4th Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J COUNSEL : Mr A J Meagher SC, Mr I M Jackman (Plaintiffs) Mr J C Sheahan SC, Mr M Christie (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Atanaskovic Hartnell (Plaintiffs) Blake Dawson Waldron (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : Trade Practices - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Section 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 - Section 51A Trade Practices Act 1974 - Contract - Construction of contract - Termination for breach of contract - Materiality of breaches - Repudiation - Validity of exercise of options - Abandonment - [see more detailed catchwords within] Copyright Act 1968 Corporations Law Dividends, Interest and Royalties Withholding Tax) Act 1974 (Cwlth) LEGISLATION CITED : Fair Trading Act 1986 (NZ) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cwlth) Income Tax Assessment Regulations International Tax Agreements Act 1953 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cwth) DECISION : The plaintiffs have failed in their misleading and deceptive conduct cases.; The Kalifair Pty Ltd and Kalinick Pty Ltd option agreements never had any contractual effect so that there were no options capable of being exercised; The defendants have failed in their claims to have terminated the subject agreements.; Save in the case of the McLean Tecnic companies, the remaining plaintiffs with valid option agreements have succeeded in their claims to have exercised the options.; Disparate issues are considered against the event that certain holdings be incorrect.; Short minutes of order to be brought in Last Modified: 09/11/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.