Successful outcome to complex litigation undertaken in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria

Our client

Our client is a medium tier print inventory management business based in Melbourne, Victoria. The business offers outsourcing services, provides custom designed and manufactured print products to businesses and also total inventory management, third party logistics and warehousing and distributing services supported by information technology.

Background

In 2008, our client purchased a print management inventory business from a vendor.

Prior to purchasing the business our client conducted due diligence and engaged experts to assist in the process. The due diligence was delayed for a number of reasons and eventually concluded in 2007. The sale occurred in 2008.

Two days before the contracts for the sale of the businesses were to be executed, the vendor provided our client with some up to date financial information regarding the business which was relied upon by our client in entering the contracts. Further, about two weeks before settlement of the sale of the business, the vendor provided our client with further financial information about the business which was relied upon in completing the sale transaction.

Dispute

Our clients took possession of the business and ultimately discovered that the financial performance of the business they had purchased was different to what they had been led to believe. Essentially, our clients claimed that the vendors had engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead and deceive, and that this conduct induced them to enter into the agreements to purchase the vendor's business and to complete the sale transaction. The vendor claimed that our clients were required to make further payments as a result of the purchase of the business.

Trial preparations

The proceeding was litigated in the new Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. 

Our client was subject to tight deadlines in preparing the matter for trial. Expert witnesses were engaged, expert reports were prepared and witness statements were drawn, filed and served. In order to meet the deadline, our firm deployed considerable resources to the project to ensure the matter was ready for trial in March/April 2011. 

Outcome

This case was successfully resolved to the satisfaction of our client 'literally' on the steps of the Supreme Court.  The trial had commenced, barristers had been briefed and the parties had appeared before the court and were ready to proceed.

On the third day of the trial a mediation was arranged and conducted and the parties were able to agree to settle the dispute on confidential terms at the conclusion of that mediation.

Enhancing their success

The settlement of the litigation resulted in our client being able to resolve the dispute quickly and to concentrate on building, consolidating and growing their new business.

This dispute was unique because the parties participated in 4 mediations - the fourth one resulting in the parties agreeing to settle the dispute.

Each mediation was beneficial because it assisted in moving the parties towards settlement.

The case highlights that alternative dispute resolution is an important tool in the litigation process and can assist in the early resolution of a dispute.