Blueprint Homes (WA) Pty Ltd v Samuel - [2016] WASC 287

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: BLUEPRINT HOMES (WA) PTY LTD -v- SAMUEL [2016] WASC 287

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 24 AUGUST 2016

DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 2038 of 2016

BETWEEN: BLUEPRINT HOMES (WA) PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
MATTHEW JOHN SAMUEL
KELLY SAMUEL
JOHN SAMUEL
Defendants

Catchwords:

Contract - Intention to make immediately binding agreement - Where agreement is made and performance conditional on execution of formal document - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW), s 95

Result:

Plaintiff's claim successful

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M L Bennett
Defendants: Mr J E Scovell

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Bennett + Co
Defendants: Edwards Mac Scovell Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Broadcasting Commission v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) NSWLR 540
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Cleary v Masterton [1999] NSWSC 207
Geebung Investments Pty Ltd v Varga Group Investments Pty Ltd [No 8] (1995) Aust Contract Rep 90‑059
Grave v Blazevic Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 329
Howe v Connell (Unreported, NSWSC, 25 September 1997)
Jennings v Jennings [2015] NSWSC 1826
Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353
MV & JM Petronaitis v DM Petronaitis [2016] NSWSC 765
Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 313
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 29; (1982) 149 CLR 537
LE MIERE J:

Summary

The plaintiff, Blueprint Homes, entered into a building contract with Matthew John Samuel and Kelly Samuel, who I will sometimes refer to as the defendants, to construct a dwelling in Aveley. The defendants complained of defective products and workmanship. The complaints eventually led the Building Commissioner to refer a dispute between Blueprint Homes and the defendants to the State Administrative Tribunal. There were negotiations between Blueprint Homes and the defendants. Blueprint Homes says that the negotiations resulted in a legally binding compromise agreement. The defendants say no binding agreement was made. In this action Blueprint Homes seeks a declaration that the defendants are bound by the terms of the compromise agreement and an order for specific performance of the terms of the agreement.
For the reasons which follow I find that on 14 March 2016 Blueprint Homes and the defendants made an immediately binding agreement that Blueprint Homes pay the defendants $16,962.45 in compromise of their claims and payment of that sum and dismissal of the Tribunal proceedings was conditional upon the execution of a deed of settlement compromise and release including indemnities by the defendants in relation to those matters.

Facts

There is little, if any, conflict about the facts giving rise to the alleged agreement. There were only two witnesses ‑ Mr Guerini, the solicitor for Blueprint homes, and Ms Dowley, the solicitor for the defendants. Each of them gave evidence by affidavit and was cross‑examined.
In [1] to [19] of his affidavit Mr Guerini produced letters and emails passing between he and Ms…

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 Blueprint Homes (WA) Pty Ltd v Samuel 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: [2016] WASC 287
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blueprint Homes (WA) Pty Ltd v Samuel, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff, Blueprint Homes, sought a declaration that a binding contract existed between the parties, which the defendant, Samuel, disputed. The core issue was whether the parties had formed an immediate and binding contract when they entered into a verbal agreement, despite the requirement for the execution of a formal written document.

The court was required to determine whether the verbal agreement, coupled with the parties' conduct, constituted an immediate and binding contract, even though the formal contract was yet to be signed. The court considered whether the parties demonstrated an intention to be immediately bound by the terms of the verbal agreement, despite the pending execution of the formal contract. The analysis involved examining the circumstances surrounding the agreement and the conduct of the parties post-agreement.

The court concluded that the verbal agreement and the subsequent conduct of the parties indicated an intention to be immediately bound by the terms of the agreement. The court found that the parties had effectively created a binding contract through their conduct and the nature of the agreement. As such, the court held that there was indeed a binding contract in place between the parties, notwithstanding the requirement for a formal written agreement. The court granted the declaration sought by Blueprint Homes, affirming the existence of the binding contract.

Orders