NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Vodafone Pacific Ltd & Ors v Mobile Innovations Ltd [2004] NSWCA 15 HEARING DATE(S) : 20, 21, 22, 23 October 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Giles JA at 2; Ipp JA at 342 DECISION : (1) appeal and cross-appeal each allowed in part; (2) Set aside the declarations in orders 1 to 5, orders 6, 7, 9 and 10 and the judgment made and given on 16 April 2003; (3) Stand the proceedings over to 12 March 2004 at 9.15 for directions; (4) Appellant/cross-respondent pay 25 per cent of the respondent/cross-appellant's costs of the trial; respondent/cross-appellant pay 80 per cent of the appellants'/cross-respondents' costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, and have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise qualified.
CATCHWORDS : Agency contract - engagement by service provider of agent to acquire by direct marketing and manage subscribers to its mobile telephone network - agent conducting Mobile Direct Marketing Operation - construction of provision precluding service provider from dealing with other service providers conducting competitive Mobile Direct Marketing Operation - whether "only" in definition of Mobile Direct Marketing Operation confined preclusion - construction of provision by which service provider set target level for acquisition of subscribers - whether could set target level of nil - whether required target level other than nil - whether terms implied as to good faith and reasonableness in setting target levels - content of implied terms found by judge - whether implication of terms as found precluded by contrary intent in contract - whether implication of terms a process of construction - whether misuse of power in setting target levels - finding of breach in failing to set target levels upheld but other findings of breach overturned - whether loss through failing to set target levels at all proved - whether breaches of other provisions of contract - whether damages for those breaches proved - whether contractual entitlement to payment under other provisions of contract. Transfer contract - agreement by service provider to transfer customers to agent to be managed under agency contract - whether mutual abandonment. Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd ("The Product Star") (No 2) (1993) 1 Ll R 397; Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349; Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australian Performing Rights Association (1972) 129 CLR 99; Australis Media Holdings Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 104; Biotechnology Austrlia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130; Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71; Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd (2001) NSWCA 187; Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468; Butt v McDonald (1896) 7 QLJ 68; Chilcotin Pty Ltd v Cenelage Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 11; Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410; Codelfa Construction Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337; The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423; The Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Co Ltd v The Commonwealth (1908) 6 CLR 647; Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10; CASES CITED : Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Ryan (2000) 201 CLR 109; Ferrcom Pty Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Ltd (1993) 176 CLR 332; Godfrey Constructions Ltd v Kanangra Park Pty Ltd (1972) 128 CLR 529; Hart v MacDonald (1910) 10 CLR 417; Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310; Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Ltd (1974) AC 821; Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Ltd (1957) AC 555; Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251; Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corporation (1997) 47 NSWLR 631; Paragon Finance Plc v Staunton (2002) 2 All ER 248; Pierce Bell Sales Pty Ltd v Frazer (1973) 130 CLR 575; Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234; Sanderson Computers Pty Ltd v Urica Library Systems BV (1998) 44 NSWLR 73; Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596; Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 201 ALR 359; TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130; Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429; Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491; Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 77 ALJR 1598; Vodafone Pacific Ltd - First Appellant/First Cross-Respondent PARTIES : Vodafone Network Pty Ltd - Second Appellant/Second Cross-Respondent Vodafone Pty Ltd - Third Appellant/Third Cross-Respondent Mobile Innovations Ltd - Respondent/Cross-Appellant FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40322/03 COUNSEL : T F Bathurst QC & T D Castle - First, Second and Third Appellants/First, Second and Third Cross-Respondents F M Douglas QC & V F Kerr - Respondent/Cross-Appellant SOLICITORS : Henry Davis York - First, Second and Third Appellants/First, Second and Third Cross-Respondents Deacons - Respondent/Cross-Appellant
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