Gilsan v Optus [2004] NSWSC 1077

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Gilsan v Optus [2004] NSWSC 1077 HEARING DATE(S) : 6/9/04, 7/9/04, 8/9/04, 9/9/04, 10/9/04, 13/9/04, 14/9/04, 16/9/04, 17/9/04, 20/9/04, 27/9/04, 28/9/04, 29/9/04, 30/9/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1 DECISION : See paras [523] and [524] of judgment

CATCHWORDS : CONTRACT - parol evidence rule - whether regulatory benchmarks admissible as parol evidence - formation of contract - whether plaintiff acted so that defendant reasonably entitled to believe that plaintiff assented to position put by defendant in e-mail - frustration - where third party in breach of obligations to defendant - whether contract between plaintiff and defendant frustrated - whether frustrating event can have retrospective operation - TRADE PRACTICES - ss 51AC, 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 - unconscionable conduct - misleading and deceptive conduct - where defendant entered into agreements with third party - where plaintiff not told of existence or terms of agreements with third party - whether plaintiff misled - whether unconscionable for defendant not to tell plaintiff of precise terms of agreements - whether statutory limit in s 51AC(9) exceeded - determination of contract "price" for purposes of statutory limit - RESTITUTION - unjust enrichment - recovery of money had and received on a failure of consideration - change of position - quantum meruit - whether defendant provided services for plaintiff or plaintiff's clients - whether services intended to be provided gratuitously - whether change of position defence made out - quantification of quantum meruit claim EVIDENCE - where defendant made assertion in e-mail - inferences - inference to be drawn from plaintiff's failure to respond to e-mail - whether plaintiff's failure to respond to e-mail an admission of allegations made in e-mail - content of applicable foreign law - whether assumption to be made that principles to be applied by foreign court in deciding whether an illegal agreement is enforceable same as principles to be applied by this Court - where no proof of any applicable provisions of relevant foreign legislation LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Frustrated Contracts Act 1978 (NSW) Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 76 ALJR 436 Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 Steinberg v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 134 CLR 640 Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360 Thomas v Hollier (1984) 156 CLR 152 Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 Sullivan v Constable (1932) 48 TLR 369 CASES CITED : David Securities Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Swiss Bank Corporation (1995) 39 NSWLR 350 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 Ralli Brothers v Cia Navier Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287 Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd (in liquidation) [1939] AC 277 Westralian Farmers Limited v Commonwealth Agricultural Service Engineers Limited (in liquidation) (1936) 54 CLR 361 Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492 Hurst v Vestcorp Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 394 British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 504 AWA Ltd v Exicom Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR [705] PARTIES : Gilsan (International) Limited (Plaintiff) Optus Networks Pty Limited (Defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50056/02 COUNSEL : P M Biscoe QC/F Kunc/M S White (Plaintiff) I M Jackman SC/A S Bell (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Gadens (Plaintiff) Gilbert & Tobin (Defendant)