Federal Court: Wollongong Coal Supply Deals Not Binding

UIL's estoppel and misleading conduct claims over the same agreements also failed The Federal Court has dismissed UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd's bid for damages over coal supply agreements it could not show were binding contracts. In UIL (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Wollongong Coal Limited (No 5) [2026] FCA 1336, released 10 September 2026, the Federal Court set out its reasons for rejecting UIL's claim against Wollongong Coal Limited (WCL) and Wongawilli Coal Pty Ltd, both part of the Indian steel and power group Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL). UIL, a Singapore-based commodities trader, claimed WCL and Wongawilli failed to supply it with around 500,000 metric tonnes of high-ash, unwashed coking coal a year under coal sale agreements (CSAs) it signed following a 2014 settlement with JSPL. UIL sought damages under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the Vienna Convention), which the court found did govern the CSAs. The court held that the CSAs left price, quantity, and other essential terms subject to further agreement between the parties, and were therefore not sufficiently definite to bind WCL and Wongawilli to supply any fixed amount of coal. It found the CSAs instead operated as a framework for future negotiations rather than as enforceable sale contracts. Even if the agreements had been binding, the court found that UIL would have suffered minimal or no loss. The parties intended the CSAs to work alongside a separate purchase deal with JSPL on a back-to-back basis that gave UIL no margin, and the CSAs included a termination right that the respondents would, on the evidence, have exercised. UIL also argued that the respondents were estopped from denying that the CSAs were valid, and that JSPL and WCL had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law by representing that binding supply arrangements would follow the 2014 settlement, under which UIL said it gave up a claim worth US$13.4 million. The court rejected both arguments. It found that the respondents never made the alleged representations, and that their conduct had not induced any assumption UIL held about the CSAs. The court dismissed UIL's originating application and ordered it to pay the respondents' costs, subject to any party seeking a different costs order within seven days of the judgment. Subscribe to our FREE newsletter service and we’ll keep you up-to-date with the latest breaking news, cutting edge opinion, and expert analysis affecting both your business and the industry as whole. Please enter your email address below and click on Sign Up for daily newsletters from Australasian Lawyer.