Skip to main content

High Court of Australia awards Nigerian Businessman $27 Million in money fabrication case against Australian business


In a recent case surely strange enough to be taught in the textbooks of upcoming law students, the High Court of Australia has determined that a company that deals with the creation and manufacture of polymer-based currencies has conducted misleading or deceptive conduct depriving a Nigerian businessman, Dr Benoy Berry of significant unpaid commissions. Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27. 



But how did it get to this?


Context

After the success of its manufacture of the current Australian polymer-based currency, the company in question, CCL Secure Pty Ltd (then called Securency) decided it would expand its operation into other countries. The company intended on doing two things in its business, licensing the intellectual property surrounding the currency and then manufacturing it for the respective countries as well. To assist with the negotiations of these countries, namely, Nigeria, Securency engaged Dr Berry to act as their agent. The terms of the agency Agreement were that Dr Berry received 15% commission on all sales that he was responsible for and the Agreement auto-renewed every two years or could be terminated by either party by giving 30 days' written notice.

Some time into the Agreement, a company related to Dr Berry became associated with legal proceedings against the Nigerian government and fearing the implications on the ongoing negotiations with Securency that this may bring, Securency decided that they wanted to terminate the Contract.

Instead of going about the agreed termination procedure in the Agreement, Securency convinced Dr Berry to terminate the Agreement under the guise that this was the process to set up the manufacturing agreement with the Nigerian government. Securency told Dr Berry that despite the termination of the Agreement, Dr Berry would still receive his commission. When the commissions didn't come, Dr Berry and his company commenced proceedings against Securency. 

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Dr Berry alleged that Securency had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s2 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), now contained in s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The Federal Court agreed and found that Dr Berry was a victim of fraudulent behaviour. 

Through the various appeals that the matter went through in the courts, the determination of damages argued over whether Securency would have terminated the Agreement lawfully. This result in significant differences in the value of the costs to be paid to Dr Berry, ranging from $1.78 million to $63 million

The High Court ultimately found that as Securency was the wrongdoer, the burden of proof was with Securency to establish that they would have terminated the Agreement lawfully. Securency was unable to prove to the Court that they would have ended the Agreement early and the Court found that Dr Berry was entitled to significant damages, valued as if the Agreement would have continued. 

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this case are that wrongdoers seeking to limit the amount payable for their fraudulent conduct must not bear the burden of proof when determining the quantum of the damages owed. It is also an excellent example of the application of the Australian Consumer Law in business to business relations and acts as a warning to those which may believe themselves or their companies exempt from it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players.  Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated.  On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed.  Th

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd  [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  What did they do that was so bad?  According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews.  With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this sch

Well, It's About Time

Well, It's About Time How two massive New York news publishers ended up fighting over intellectual property. On 20 November 2020, two of the largest most influential media organisations on the planet locked horns over their rights to the thing which Gollum so eloquently put as, 'the thing that devours all things, or for those that are not as up to date on their  Lord of the Rings  trivia, 'Time'.  As fancy bathrooms are no longer exclusively stacked with copies of the magazine, earlier this year, Time magazine diversified their offering. It unveiled a new short-form online interview series called 'TIME100 Talks' which featured online interviews with journalists, talents and thought leaders. As the videos became popular, Time magazine began to branch out with this brand, establishing Time Talks for dedicated topics like health. Accordingly, they applied to have the trademark 'TIME100 Talks' registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (