Anjoul v Anjoul

In the matter of Anjoul v Anjoul, the plaintiff sought to enforce a deed of acknowledgement of debt against the defendant for contributions made to the renovation of a property. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to any recovery due to his failure to comply with the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) by not holding a contractor licence or insurance. The plaintiff also sought alternative relief in equity, claiming a constructive trust over the property and restitution for the work done. The defendant argued that the deed was procured by duress or undue influence and was therefore unconscionable. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff could enforce the deed, whether it was a penalty, if it was unjust, and if there was any entitlement to restitution.

The court found that the Home Building Act did not prohibit the plaintiff from enforcing the deed if it was enforceable, nor did it bar him from obtaining restitution if the deed was not enforceable. The court also held that the liquidated damages clause in the deed was not a penalty, as it could not be characterised as inducing performance of another provision of the deed. Regarding the argument that the deed was unjust, the court found that there was a material inequality of bargaining power and that the plaintiff exercised unfair pressure or tactics in causing the defendant to enter into the deed. However, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an equitable interest in the property on the basis of a partial constructive trust, as there was no joint endeavour between the parties. The court also found that there was no relationship of influence between the parties to establish undue influence, but that the deed should be set aside on the ground that it was procured by the plaintiff taking unconscionable advantage of the defendant’s special disadvantage.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a caveatable interest in the property as the defendant’s consent to the lodgement of the caveat demonstrated an intention that a charge would be created over the property by the lodgement. The court also found that the plaintiff may be entitled to restitution from the defendant for the reasonable costs of the residential building work done and materials supplied, and the value that his participation in the renovation added to the property. The defendant should not in principle enjoy the whole benefit of the renovation works for nothing. The court ordered that the deed be set aside and that the plaintiff be entitled to restitution for the reasonable costs of the residential building work done and materials supplied, and the value that his participation in the renovation added to the property.