Various judgments
Hani v Bank Audi S.A.L [2026] SASC 107 (South Australian Supreme Court, interlocutory judgment)
Acted for as junior counsel, led by Mr Chad Jacobi KC, for the applicant Mr Hani in interlocutory applications heard by Chief Justice Stein in a 2-week hearing, in which most of the oral evidence was received by video link from Lebanon. Mr Hani’s substantive claim in the proceedings sought recovery of approximately AUD $7 million that had been deposited by him with a Lebanese bank, the respondent Bank Audi, largely on term deposits. On the maturity of the term deposits, Bank Audi refused to pay Mr Hani the deposited funds and accrued interest, relying on circumstances arising out of a financial crisis that occurred in Lebanon in 2019 after Mr Hani had deposited the moneys, including policies relating to foreign deposits that were introduced by the Lebanese banking sector due to the financial crisis.
Bank Audi brought an application for a dismissal or stay of Mr Hani’s claim based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the banking contract relating to the deposits, along with forum non conveniens grounds. Mr Hani opposed Bank Audi’s application on two grounds insofar as it relied on the exclusive jurisdiction clause and contended that the South Australian Supreme Court was not a clearly inappropriate forum for trial of the action. The first of those two grounds was that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was invalid under codified Lebanese consumer law. The second of the two grounds was that the court should exercise its residual discretion to refuse to stay Mr Hani’s claim based on unforeseen and radically changed circumstances arising since Mr Hani signed the banking contract, being the Lebanese financial crisis and its effects on the Lebanese banking and judicial systems. Detailed documentary and oral evidence were led by the parties in relation to these matters.
By a judgment delivered on 16 July 2026, the court dismissed Bank Audi’s application for a dismissal or stay and held that the South Australian Supreme Court was not a clearly inappropriate forum for trial of the action. The court upheld the above grounds on which Mr Hani had opposed the exclusive jurisdiction clause, holding that the clause was invalid under Lebanese consumer law and, in the alternative, exercising its residual discretion to refuse to stay Mr Hani’s claim based on the above unforeseen and radically changed circumstances associated with the Lebanese financial crisis.
Boating Syndication of Australia Pty Ltd & ors v BSA Management Qld Pty Ltd & Anor [2024] FCA 502 (Federal Court, New South Wales Registry – interlocutory judgment)
Acted for the respondents (and applicants by cross claim), BSA Management Qld Pty Ltd and one of its directors, in proceedings concerning a luxury yacht management and syndication business in the Gold Coast that was operated by BSA Management Qld Pty Ltd under a licence deed. The applicants’ claims included alleged breach of contract, alleged breaches of equitable duties of confidence, and the enforcement of purported restraints of trade contained in the licence deed (including by way of injunctive relief).
The applicants brought an application seeking interlocutory injunctions, inter alia, effectively restraining a company related to the respondents, Neptune Oceanic Pty Ltd (Neptune), from conducting a yacht management and syndication business, relying upon restraint of trade clauses contained in the licence deed. I appeared for the respondents and Neptune (as a non-party) at the hearing of the application before Justice Markovic on 7 May 2024, in which the applicants were represented by Senior Counsel. Prior to the hearing, the clients consented to limited injunctions and provided various undertakings, on a commercial basis. A broader injunction, which sought to restrain the respondents from being involved in the competing business conducted by Neptune (and would, in effect, have prevented Neptune from conducting its business), was opposed.
By a judgment delivered on the interlocutory application on 14 May 2024, the contested part of the application was dismissed on the grounds that the applicants’ case for final relief in relation to the non-competition restraint had various weaknesses and that the balance of convenience fell in favour of my clients. The applicants were ordered to pay the clients’ (the respondents’) costs of the application.
The overall proceedings settled at mediation not long afterwards on confidential terms. Following the settlement, Neptune continues to conduct its yacht management and syndication business in the Gold Coast.
Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd v Huang (No 5) [2021] FCA 739; Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd v Huang (No 6) [2021] FCA 983 (Federal Court, Victorian Registry)
Appeared for Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd (Aucare) and its director in an application brought by an interested party, Grandtra Investments Pty Ltd (Grandtra). Grandtra made the application following orders made in the primary judgment in the proceedings: Aucare Dairy (Aust) Pty Ltd v Huang (No 3) [2019] FCA 412.
In the primary judgment, Aucare obtained relief against various respondents including the seventh respondent, Nutritional Choice Australia Pty Ltd (NCA). Grandtra was the majority shareholder of NCA. It and various other shareholders of NCA were innocent parties who had been affected by the orders made against NCA. The orders made in the primary judgment included a consent order to the effect that Grandtra may seek compensation (for it and other shareholders of NCA) from Aucare and its director, subject to certain pre-conditions. Grandtra’s application sought compensation of $2 million for it and various minority shareholders.
The issues on Grandtra’s application included the construction of the compensation order and other consent orders made in the primary judgment; whether the pre-conditions for the payment of compensation under the compensation order had been met; and whether Grandtra and the minority shareholders had suffered a requisite loss warranting the recovery of compensation under the order.
The court dismissed the application, holding that Grandtra had failed in making out its claim for compensation. Grandtra and the minority shareholders were ordered to pay the clients’ costs of the application.
Gabjet Pty Ltd & Anor v Funk Franchise Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] SADC 88; Gabjet Pty Ltd & anor v Funk Franchise Pty Ltd & ors (No.2) [2022] SADC 28; Gabjet Pty Ltd & anor v Funk Franchise Pty Ltd & ors (No.3) [2022] SADC 65 (South Australian District Court)
Appeared for two related applicants in a claim against a franchisor, its directors, and related companies for misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, contravention of the Franchising Code of Conduct, and alleged invalid termination of two franchise agreements. One applicant was successful in obtaining a judgment of $557,000. Despite misrepresentations having been found to have been made to the other applicant, it did not establish misleading or deceptive conduct as the misrepresentations were found not to be causative of its loss. However, it was successful in establishing contraventions of the Franchising Code of Conduct and the invalid termination of its franchise and was awarded declaratory relief and damages of $22,000. The clients obtained an order for 80% of their overall costs.
Carey v Balfour [2021] SASC 79 (South Australian Supreme Court, on appeal)
Appeared in a successful appeal in the Supreme Court relating to summary judgment granted in the Court below on a claim for indemnity in contract and restitution, based upon a guarantee provided by the client.
Harrison & Anor v Hancock & Ors [2019] SADC 163; Harrison & Anor v Hancock & Ors (No 2) [2020] SADC 103 (South Australian District Court)
Appeared for property developers in a quantum meruit building claim and in defence of a counterclaim for delay and allegedly defective building work. The client was successful on both the claim and counterclaim and obtained an order for indemnity costs.
Sante Wines Pty Ltd v Paxton Wines Pty Ltd [2018] SASC 104 (Magistrates Court/South Australian Supreme Court, on appeal)
Appeared for a wine company in a debt claim, and in the defence of a counterclaim for alleged breach of a distribution agreement, in the Magistrates Court and in an appeal to the Supreme Court. The client was successful on all issues and obtained an order for indemnity costs.
Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd v Pets Paradise Franchising (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 10) [2012] FCA 25; Pampered Paws Connection Pty Ltd v Pets Paradise Franchising (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 11) [2013] FCA 241 (Federal Court, South Australian Registry)
Appeared as junior counsel for a franchisor in the largely successful defence of a representative action in the Federal Court for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and exclusive dealing.
Ciccarello v Bunton [2011] SASCFC 34 (Magistrates Court/South Australian Supreme Court, Full Court)
Appeared for a former Member of Parliament in an encroachment dispute, in which the client was successful at trial (and in an appeal, before the Full Court of the Supreme Court, on the question of the costs of the trial).
Rawley Pty Ltd v Bell (No 2) [2007] FCA 583 (Federal Court, South Australian Registry)
Appeared for the second respondent in the successful defence of two substantial misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty claims in the Federal Court, which were heard together, relating to the procuring of investment capital in a tilt-up concrete construction venture.
Other Matters
Acted as junior counsel for the State of South Australia in the defence of a multi-million dollar claim in the Supreme Court, involving confidential circumstances.
Acted for a director in a Federal Court action against another director, ex-employees and a competing business established by the ex-employees, in which search and seizure orders were obtained against the respondents and a claim for breach of director’s/fiduciary duty, oppressive conduct and breach of confidence was settled at mediation on confidential terms.
Acted for a leading national franchisor in a Federal Court claim regarding breaches of a Master Franchise Agreement, trademark breaches, passing off, misleading or deceptive conduct and breaches of fiduciary duty, which settled on confidential terms.
Acted for respondents and cross-claimants in the Supreme Court in a dispute between joint venture parties regarding the development of two parcels of land, involving complex factual and legal issues. The issues involved allegations relating to breaches of contract, misleading or deceptive conduct/misrepresentation, unconscionable conduct, oppressive conduct under the Corporations Act, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trusts, and restitution. The action settled before trial, on confidential terms.
Acted for respondents in the Supreme Court in a claim for alleged breaches of restraints of trade and confidentiality terms contained in employment contracts, as well as alleged use of confidential information in a competing business. The applicants were initially granted interim injunctions on an ex parte basis. The clients opposed the continuation of the restraint of trade injunction orders on various grounds, including that the restraints were invalid, there being an insufficient evidentiary basis for most of the restraints, and on the balance of convenience. The clients were successful in having the ex parte restraint of trade injunctions set aside and a costs order was made in their favour. The matter subsequently settled on confidential terms.
Acted for an applicant in the Supreme Court in a dispute between him and his brother relating to farming land that had been held in the family over many years. The client’s claim was based on equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, a constructive trust, the doctrine of fraud on a power, and relief under section 36 or 37 of the Trustee Act 1936 (SA) or the inherent general supervisory jurisdiction of the court over the administration of trusts. The matter resolved at mediation on confidential terms.
Acted for an applicant in the District Court in a claim for specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale and purchase of a hotel, in which there was a dispute regarding whether the contract was binding (under the principles in Masters v Cameron). The claim settled at mediation on terms under which a new formal contract was entered into for the purchase of the hotel by the client.
Further Information
E: cmunt@ebchambers.com.au
Link to SA Bar Association profile
