Canty v PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 309

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Canty v PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 309 Hearing dates: 30 - 31 July 2014 Decision date: 05 September 2014 Before: Barrett JA at [1]; Emmett JA at [2]; Gleeson JA at [5] Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed. (2) The appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: CONTRACTS - General contractual principles - Contracts Review Act 1980 s 7 - Unjust contracts - Whether the Deed of Guarantee was procedurally unjust - Whether the absence of independent legal or financial advice meant that there was unfairness in the methods used to obtain the Deed of Guarantee GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY - Construction of Contract - Whether Deed of Guarantee also contained an indemnity - Whether the clause contained an assumption of primary liability - Whether the language contained in a recital was inconsistent with an operative clause - Whether Total Oil Products (Australia) Pty Ltd v Robinson requires that the promisee must have entered into a transaction with a third party at the request of the promisor before an indemnity obligation will arise JUDICIAL REVIEW - Grounds of review - Procedural fairness - Whether interlocutory and procedural rulings denied the appellants the chance to make out the case in their defences - Whether the trial judge wrongly exercised his discretion Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 57, and 58 Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) ss 7 and 9 Cases Cited: Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd [1987] HCA 15; 162 CLR 549 Avranik Pty Ltd v Lloyd [2013] VSCA 244 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings [1977] HCA 40; 180 CLR 266 Chacmol Holdings Pty Ltd v Handberg [2005] FCAFC 40; 215 ALR 748 Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337 Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading [2009] NSWCA 407; 76 NSWLR 603 Guild & Co v Conrad [1894] 2 QB 885 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499 Jowitt v Callaghan (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 512 Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108 Metwally v University of Wollongong (No 2) [1985] HCA 28; 60 ALR 48 Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331 New South Wales v Mulcahy [2006] NSWCA 303 Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36; 84 NSWLR 231 PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 9 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (No 2) (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 9 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (No 3) (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 9 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (No 4) (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 10 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (No 5) (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 10 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd v Canty (No 6) (Supreme Court (NSW), McDougall J, 10 September 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia v Canty [2013] NSWSC 1407 Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 Scott v Davis [2000] HCA 52; 204 CLR 333 Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney [1988] HCA 11; 166 CLR 245 Sutton v Grey [1894] 1 QB 285 Total Oil Products (Australia) Pty Ltd v Robinson [1970] 1 NSWR 701 Turner Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v Senes [1964] NSWR 692 Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531 Water Board v Moustakas [1988] HCA 12; 180 CLR 491 West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 610 Yeoman Credit Ltd v Latter [1961] 1 WLR 828 Texts Cited: Justinian's Digest Phillips and O'Donovan, The Modern Contract of Guarantee (loose-leaf, Thomson Reuters) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Paul Brian Canty (First appellant) Denise Irene Canty (Second appellant) PaperlinX Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: C J Bevan with I Sethi (Appellants) T M Faulkner with S Cirillo (Respondent) Solicitors: Evangelos Patakas & Associates (Appellants) K&L Gates (Respondent) File Number(s): 2013/306593 Publication restriction: No Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9111 Citation: PaperlinX Australia Pty Limited v Paul Brian Canty and Others (Supreme Court (NSW) Hammerschlag J, 8 May 2013, unrep) PaperlinX Australia v Canty [2013] NSWSC 1407 (16 September 2013) Date of Decision: 2013-09-16 00:00:00 Before: McDougall J File Number(s): 2011/145590