RSN Australia Pty Ltd v Casama Group Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1788

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RSN Australia Pty Ltd v Casama Group Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1788 Hearing dates: 30 November and 1 December 2016 Decision date: 14 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Ball J Decision: See paragraphs 54 and 55 Catchwords: CONTRACTS – construction and interpretation of contracts – no issue of principle Cases Cited: Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd [2016] HCA 5; (2016) 90 ALJR 392 Category: Principal judgment Parties: RSN Australia Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Casama Group Pty Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: ST White SC (Plaintiff) K Andronos SC with TL Hollo (Defendant)

Solicitors: Hazan Hollander (Plaintiff) Millens (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/196195 Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction 1. The Riedel group of companies, which has its headquarters in Austria, manufactures and distributes glassware throughout the world. It has been owned by the same family since 1756 and is best known for its production of different types of wine glass sold under the Riedel brand. The plaintiff, RSN Australia Pty Limited (RSN), which is the Australian subsidiary of the group, was incorporated on 1 June 2007 to take over the distribution of Riedel products in Australia and New Zealand from companies in the group based in Austria. 2. The defendant, Casama, was established in 1963 and is involved in the wholesale distribution of wine, glassware and water. It has distributed Riedel products in Australia since 1994 pursuant to various distribution agreements entered into with companies in the Riedel group. The scope of Casama's distribution rights have changed over time. Originally, it was appointed the exclusive distributor of Riedel products in Australia and New Zealand, but following the incorporation of RSN, the scope of its rights has narrowed over time. 3. Most recently, Casama and RSN entered into an agreement with effect from 1 July 2012 (the DA) in relation to the distribution of Riedel products in Australia by Casama. The DA was for an initial term of 3 years and was to renew automatically for two further one year terms unless either party gave written notice of termination at least three months before the expiration of the initial term or the expiration of the first renewal. 4. On 26 April 2016, RSN gave written notice of the termination of the DA. It is common ground that, in accordance with an agreement that had been reached between RSN and Casama, that notice was effective to terminate the agreement on 30 June 2016. The issues in this case are concerned with the amounts payable by the parties following termination.