Anjoul v Anjoul (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 1511

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Anjoul v Anjoul (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1511
Hearing dates: 15 November 2021
Decision date: 23 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
The Court will make the order sought by the plaintiff in prayer 1(a) of his notice of motion filed on 20 October 2021 limited to evidence already served by the plaintiff. The Court will reserve the costs of the notice of motion until the Court is able to consider the making of final orders in these proceedings. The parties should confer and submit to the Associate to Robb J draft short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons and for the future case management of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — General principles and maxims — Discretionary nature of jurisdiction — Those who seek equity must do equity — Where the plaintiff sought to enforce a deed executed by the defendant in which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff an amount for the plaintiff’s work in renovating the defendant’s property — Where the Court found that the defendant was entitled in principle to an order setting aside the deed on the ground that it was entered into in unconscionable circumstances — Where the defendant had not offered to do equity by paying reasonable compensation for the plaintiff’s work — Where the evidence of the reasonable amount of remuneration of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory — Where the plaintiff applied for leave to introduce additional evidence going to the condition upon which relief should be granted to the defendant — Where the Court granted the plaintiff’s application limited to additional evidence already served on the defendant
CONTRACTS — Unjust contracts — Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) — Power of Court — Where the Court has decided in principle to set aside an unjust contract subject to the defendant paying reasonable remuneration to the plaintiff for work done — Where the evidence of the reasonable amount of remuneration of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory — Where the plaintiff applied for leave to introduce additional evidence to establish the reasonable remuneration — Where the plaintiff’s application was granted
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Application by the plaintiff for leave to introduce additional evidence to prove condition the Court should impose on the defendant before making an order that a deed between the plaintiff and the defendant be set aside — Where application was granted

Legislation Cited:
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Anjoul v Anjoul [2021] NSWSC 592
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; [1991] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Heydon, J D, M J Leeming and P G Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (5th ed, 2015, LexisNexis Butterworths)

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Jerry Anjoul (plaintiff)
Ashley Anjoul (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: G P McNally SC / M S Daniels (plaintiff)
P Newton SC / M Collins (defendant)
Solicitors: Laurence & Laurence Commercial Lawyers (plaintiff)
JD Law Group Pty Ltd…

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 Anjoul v Anjoul (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: [2021] NSWSC 1511
Decision Date: 23 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are Anjoul, the plaintiff, and Anjoul, the defendant. The dispute revolves around the enforcement of a deed executed by the defendant, in which he agreed to pay the plaintiff for renovations carried out on his property. The case was heard in a court in Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the deed should be set aside on the grounds that it was entered into under unconscionable circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the defendant had offered to do equity by paying reasonable compensation for the plaintiff's work.

The court considered the principles of equity, particularly the maxim "those who seek equity must do equity." It was found that the defendant was entitled in principle to an order setting aside the deed due to the unconscionable circumstances under which it was executed. However, the defendant had not offered to pay reasonable compensation for the work done. The court was presented with unsatisfactory evidence regarding the reasonable amount of remuneration owed to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff applied for leave to introduce additional evidence to establish the reasonable remuneration. The court granted the plaintiff's application, allowing the introduction of additional evidence already served on the defendant.

The court's decision was influenced by the need for equitable principles and the necessity of providing reasonable compensation. The court granted the plaintiff's application for leave to introduce additional evidence, limited to evidence already served on the defendant. This decision allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the reasonable remuneration owed to the plaintiff. The court's ruling ensures that the principles of equity are upheld and that the defendant has an opportunity to compensate the plaintiff appropriately for the work done.

Orders