ANDERSON -v- McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 19 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2210/2007	Heard:	3-6 OCTOBER & 24 NOVEMBER 2011 & 2 MARCH 2012
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	25/01/12
Supplementary Delivered:	2/03/12
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRUCE WILLIAM ANDERSON CAROLYN ANDERSON STEPHANNIE MARRIEE McPHERSON TROY KENNON ANDERSON
Catchwords:	Orders consequent upon reasons for judgment Equitable compensation sought No cause of action pleaded in support of equitable compensation No submissions in opening or closing in support of equitable compensation No legal basis for the award of equitable compensation 'Minimum equity' principle as derived from the law of estoppel is not a stand-alone ground for equitable compensation 'Minimum equity' principle is probably not part of Australian law Award of equitable compensation inconsistent with reasons given and with findings of fact
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 59; (1998) 195 CLR 566 Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 18; (1999) 198 CLR 380 Clifton v Chinnery [2011] WASC 294 Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39; (1990) 170 CLR 394 Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179 Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84 Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1999) 196 CLR 101 Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612 Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312 Tadrous v Tadrous [2012] NSWCA 16 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ANDERSON -v- McPHERSON [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 3-6 OCTOBER & 24 NOVEMBER 2011 & 2 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 25 JANUARY 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 2 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2210 of 2007 BETWEEN : BRUCE WILLIAM ANDERSON

First Plaintiff

CAROLYN ANDERSON

Second Plaintiff

AND

STEPHANNIE MARRIEE McPHERSON

First Defendant

TROY KENNON ANDERSON

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Orders consequent upon reasons for judgment - Equitable compensation sought - No cause of action pleaded in support of equitable compensation - No submissions in opening or closing in support of equitable compensation - No legal basis for the award of equitable compensation - 'Minimum equity' principle as derived from the law of estoppel is not a stand-alone ground for equitable compensation - 'Minimum equity' principle is probably not part of Australian law - Award of equitable compensation inconsistent with reasons given and with findings of fact

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr A P Rumsley

Second Plaintiff : Mr A P Rumsley

First Defendant : Mr D J Morris

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Alan Rumsley

Second Plaintiff : Alan Rumsley

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anderson v McPHERSON [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WASC 19 (S)
Decision Date: 25 JANUARY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Anderson v McPherson, the parties were Anderson, the plaintiff, and McPherson, the defendant. The dispute centered on the plaintiff's claim for equitable compensation following the termination of a lease agreement. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought equitable compensation, which he alleged was due because of the defendant's breach of the lease agreement.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the plaintiff could be awarded equitable compensation in the absence of a specific cause of action for such relief. The plaintiff had not pleaded a cause of action for equitable compensation and made no submissions in support of it at either the opening or closing of the case. The court further had to determine whether the so-called 'minimum equity' principle, derived from the law of estoppel, provided a legal basis for the award of equitable compensation. The court examined whether this principle is part of Australian law and whether it could operate as a standalone ground for such an award.

The court found that there was no legal basis for the award of equitable compensation as the plaintiff had not pleaded a cause of action for it and made no submissions in support of it. The court held that the 'minimum equity' principle, as derived from the law of estoppel, is likely not part of Australian law and does not provide a standalone ground for equitable compensation. The court further noted that the award of equitable compensation would be inconsistent with the reasons given and the findings of fact in the case. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for equitable compensation was dismissed.

The orders made were that the plaintiff's claim for equitable compensation was dismissed, and no order was made for the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.