Weston Energy Pty Ltd v National Ceramics Industries Australia Pty Limited

2025/00319746

CONTRACTS – in 2022, the respondent, National Ceramics Industries Australia Pty Ltd (Ceramics), tendered for a new natural gas supplier – the appellant, Weston Energy Pty Ltd (Weston), was successful after negotiating a 12-month price cap – ten days after the contract was executed, the price of natural gas increased due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine – on 24 May 2022, the Australian Energy Market Operator suspended Weston's trading licence for exceeding the trading limit – in anticipation of the suspension, Weston terminated its contract with Ceramics on 23 May 2022 under clause 15.1(c) of the contract – Ceramics subsequently sourced natural gas from Origin Energy at a higher price – in 2024, Weston filed a statement of claim against Ceramics for payment of an invoice served shortly before its suspension – Ceramics filed a cross-claim, alleging that Weston had failed to obtain 'price capping insurance' (per clause 1.8 of the contract) and sought restitution for unjust enrichment and compensation for misleading or deceptive conduct – the primary judge held that Weston had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing that a relevant price capping insurance product was available and that it would obtain such insurance for the benefit of both itself and Ceramics – Weston’s invoice claim was extinguished by equitable set-off – whether the primary judge erred in finding that Weston’s conduct was misleading or deceptive – whether the primary judge otherwise erred in failing to find that representatives of Ceramics did not make reasonable enquiries of the price cap in proposed clause 1.8, and therefore erred in finding that the pleaded conduct was misleading or deceptive – whether the primary judge erred in finding that clause 1.8 was a contractual clause of calculated ambiguity which was exploited by Weston’s representatives because there was insufficient evidence for those findings and they were not put before Weston’s representatives at cross-examination – whether the primary judge erred in not finding that the decision to suspend Weston's trading licence was an independent, external, or supervening cause that broke the necessary chain of causation – whether the primary judge erred in finding that, because of Weston’s misleading or deceptive conduct, Ceramics suffered loss or damage for the purposes of section 236 of the Australian Consumer Law in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

Weston Energy Pty Ltd v National Ceramic Industries Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 747

Weston Energy Pty Ltd v National Ceramic Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 864