Skybridge Financial Pty Ltd atf the MTP Unit Trust v Buckpitt

By contract dated 1 July 2022, the first defendant, Mr Buckpitt, sold his Tamworth accounting practice to the plaintiffs, Skybridge Financial Pty Ltd, for $1.8 million. Completion took place on 1 August 2022.

Skybridge commenced these proceedings on 11 August 2023. In its List Statement filed on 5 September 2023, it alleged breaches of provisions in the contract that allowed Mr Buckpitt to recover from his former clients work in progress that was invoiced at the date of completion. The other allegation Skybridge makes is that Mr Buckpitt has sought to recover un-invoiced work in progress from identified clients.

The contract also contained a restraint clause. In Skybridge’s current List Statement, only one breach of that clause is alleged, namely, that in relation to an identified client:

That is the only allegation the company made in Skybridge’s List Statement concerning the restraint clause.

Skybridge served its evidence late on 30 April 2024. That evidence included an affidavit from one of its directors, Mr Jason Birch, to which I will return. However, also included in that evidence was an affidavit from Skybridge’s solicitor suggesting that Skybridge’s damages would be modest indeed. Mr Buckpitt served his corroborating affidavit on or about 25 July 2024.

At a directions hearing on 26 July 2024, the Court extended the time for Skybridge to serve its evidence in reply and ordered that any application for leave to serve expert evidence or obtain discovery be made returnable today. It was in that context that Skybridge then was seeking a date for hearing and that, in effect, informed the Court that the matter was otherwise ready for a hearing.

Now, by notice of motion filed on 2 August 2024, Skybridge seeks leave to amend its Summons and List Statement to make allegations of breach by Mr Buckpitt of the restraint clauses, and also seeks discovery. However, the proposed amendment by Skybridge of its claim was not foreshadowed prior to the filing of the notice of motion. The amendments propose to add a number of incidences where Mr Buckpitt is seeking to recover un-invoiced work in progress, but it also adds nine claims of alleged solicitation of clients in breach of the restraint clause. In each case, the form of the allegation is:

The basis for these allegations against those nine clients appears to be no more than that:

In that regard, part of the evidence served for Skybridge on 30 April 2024 was the affidavit of Mr Birch, to which I have referred, in which he deposed:

Skybridge has known of the matters in [8(a)] above, I take it, since at least 30 November 2023, on which date Mr Buckpitt’s email was annexed to an affidavit by an officer of Skybridge made in support of an earlier application, and has known of the matter in [8(b)] above since 15 April 2023.

However, it has also been open to Skybridge to seek to propound the amendments the subject of its application since then. There is no evidence before me to explain why it is only now that Skybridge seeks to amend, saving that Mr Lees has informed me, and I accept, that it has only occurred to those advising Skybridge since the matter was last before the Court that these amendments ought to be sought.

It is obviously unsatisfactory that the matter has developed this way. It may well be that, faced with the apparently immodest monetary value of the claim as currently pleaded, the thoughts of those advising Skybridge turned to other possible claims. However that may be, I cannot see how it would be just to shut out Skybridge from seeking to pursue these matters. Therefore, I propose to permit the proposed amendments. There will, however, be conditions.

Mr Lees informed me that, were leave granted to make the proposed amendments, Skybridge would not seek to adduce further evidence. Accordingly, as a condition of leave I propose to order that Skybridge may not adduce any further evidence without the leave of the Court, such leave not to be given unless exceptional circumstances are shown. Further, Mr Buckpitt will doubtless need to adduce further evidence to meet the amended case, including to place before the Court such evidence as he may be advised to adduce, vis-à-vis the people referred to in the Australian Taxation Office portal extract. He did not deal with these matters in his 25 July 2024 affidavit no doubt, because it was not then an issue.

Mr Lees accepts that Skybridge must pay Mr Buckpitt’s costs thrown away by the amendment. I was inclined to direct that those costs include the further costs that Mr Buckpitt will incur in adducing that further evidence and to grant Mr Buckpitt leave to apply for a gross sum costs order in relation to those costs, however, on reflection, my conclusion is that those costs, or at least the bulk of them, would likely have been incurred in any event had this amendment been made in a more timely manner and that this question is best left to the trial judge.

However, Skybridge must pay the defendants’ costs of its notice of motion seeking leave. I propose to make a gross sum costs order in relation to those costs payable forthwith and order that leave to amend be conditional upon those costs being paid within seven days of entry of orders giving effect to these reasons.

If the parties cannot confer and agree on a figure for Mr Buckpitt’s costs of Skybridge’s motion, the parties should confer and agree on a timetable for short written submissions and any evidence on that question I will decide on the papers.

As to the question of discovery, Skybridge has proposed categories of discovery. I propose to direct the parties to prepare a Redfern Schedule in which Skybridge sets out in one column the categories of discovery it seeks and in a second column its argument in favour of disclosure of those categories. Mr Buckpitt should then populate a third column with his contention as to why the disclosure should not be given. The Schedule should provide a fourth column for me to populate it with my rulings I will decide then.

The parties should now agree on the orders necessary to give effect to these reasons and also for the directions for the future conduct of the matter, including, no doubt, an amended list response by Mr Buckpitt.