Supreme Court. New South Wales. Boucher v Murray Irrigation Limited; Pratt v Murray Irrigation Limited; Park v. Murray I
Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales
Boucher v Murray Irrigation Limited; Pratt v Murray Irrigation Limited; Park v Murray Irrigation Limited [2017] NSWSC 1268 Button J The Supreme Court has dismissed a claim for damages made by a number of former and present members of Murray Irrigation Limited, a not-for-profit irrigation corporation operating in the south-western region of New South Wales. The claim was based upon the fact that, in 2008, the corporation “changed its rules” without notice to its members, in a way said to have financially disadvantaged each of the plaintiffs. In particular, it was said that changes to the way members of the corporation were permitted to trade their entitlements to irrigation water, and their entitlements to the delivery of that water to their rural properties, should lead to compensation. Although the events that had taken place were not the subject of great dispute, there was an issue that needed to be determined about the motivation of the directors of the corporation in making the change. Generally, Justice Button determined that question in favour of the corporation, on the basis that the change was made out of sincere concern for its financial health. The claim had a number of separate legal bases, including breach of contract (formulated in a number of different ways),“statutory unconscionability”, pursuant now to section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law (the ACL), and (with regard to two of the plaintiffs) a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct, pursuant now to section 18 of the ACL. Despite the number of legal bases upon which relief was claimed, however, Justice Button found that none of them had been established. In particular with regard to the form of unconscionability alleged, his Honour accepted that the plaintiffs felt aggrieved by what had occurred, but was not satisfied that the evaluative judgment that the conduct of the corporation was unconscionable should be made. The question of costs was reserved for further argument on a later date.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
