Legal Research
Cases
Blashki v Utara

Blashki v Utara

Case [2002] NSWSC 1201 13 December 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2003) Aust Contract Reports 90-159

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4686/99

HEARING DATE(S): 19 & 20 March, 4, 5 & 15 November and 3 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 December 2002

PARTIES :

Phillip Sydney Blashki (P)
Ida Bagus Utara (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : S J Burchett (P)
G A Sirtes (D)

SOLICITORS: Andrews (P)
Burn & Company (D)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS [1] - General contractual principles - Offer and acceptance - Contract implied from conduct of parties - Whether possibility of analysis in terms of offer and acceptance is necessary to existence of contract - EQUITY [39] - General principles - Equitable charges and liens - Money expended or benefit conferred on property of another - GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY [1] - The contract of guarantee - What constitutes a guarantee - Generally - Necessity for defined principal obligation.

CASES CITED: A A Davison Pty Ltd v Seabrook (1931) 37 ALR 150
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Callahan v O'Neill [2002] NSWSC 877
Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Limited v Alderton (1964) 81 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 297
Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677
Cumming v Sands [2001] NSWSC 2; (2001) NSW ConvR 55-989
Gordon v Norton (1887) 8 NSWLR 479
Jowitt v Callaghan (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 512
Mercantile Credits Ltd v Harry [1969] 2 NSWR 248
Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61
Pearson v Goldsborough, Mort & Company Limited [1931] SASR 320
Wong v Mura [2001] NSWCA 366
Meagher, Gummow & Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies (3rd Ed, 1996) [1210]
O'Donovan and Phillips, The Modern Contract of Guarantee (2nd Ed, 1996) 62

DECISION: Relations of the parties as to subject property were regulated by contract: see [43]. There was no express, resulting or contructive trust nor any equitable charge in favour of plaintiff. There was no enforceable guarantee given by defendant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2002

4686/99 PHILLIP SYDNEY BLASHKI v IDA BAGUS UTARA

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is another unfortunate case of close friends who engaged in a property transaction together and then fell out. The property involved is the house property at 19 Courland Street, Five Dock. The plaintiff is an Australian who for some years with his then wife conducted an English language computer studies school which established offices in various parts of the world including Jakarta and Denpasar. The defendant is a man of Balinese origin who now lives in Australia. The plaintiff met the defendant when on holiday in Bali and they became closely friendly, to the extent that the plaintiff was the best man at the defendant’s wedding. In the mid 1990s both men had money available from divorce settlements, although it would seem the defendant’s money was tied up in a term deposit.

2 There are some clear and undisputed facts in…

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.

Continue reading Blashki v Utara

Details

AGLC: Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1201
Decision Date: 13 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blashki v Utara involved the question of whether a contract existed between the parties, and if so, whether it was a valid guarantee. The dispute arose from circumstances where the defendant had provided financial assistance to the plaintiff to purchase property, and the plaintiff later claimed that this constituted a guarantee of the loan used to purchase the property. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a contract could be implied from the conduct of the parties without the necessity of an explicit offer and acceptance. Additionally, the court had to determine if the financial assistance provided by the defendant to the plaintiff constituted a guarantee of the loan used to purchase the property, and whether such a guarantee was valid under the principles of equity. The court also considered whether the transaction could be characterised as a guarantee or indemnity under contract law.

The High Court held that for a contract to be valid, it did not necessarily require a traditional offer and acceptance analysis. The court found that the conduct of the parties could imply a contract if it demonstrated an intention to create legal relations and an agreement on essential terms. The court further determined that the financial assistance provided by the defendant did not amount to a guarantee of the loan but rather a direct benefit conferred on the property of the plaintiff. The court ruled that this did not create an equitable charge or lien on the property. Additionally, the court clarified that a guarantee must be clearly defined and attached to a principal obligation, which was not the case here.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim for a guarantee was dismissed. The court held that no enforceable guarantee existed between the parties and that the defendant's financial assistance did not create a charge or lien on the property. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear terms in contracts of guarantee and the necessity of a defined principal obligation.

Orders