Legal Research
Cases
Broughton v Leslie

Broughton v Leslie

Case [2019] NSWSC 827 4 July 2019

Contract Formation

Misrepresentation

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Broughton v Leslie [2019] NSWSC 827
Hearing dates: 24, 25 and 26 June 2019
Decision date: 04 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Leeming JA
Decision:
Direct the parties to supply to my Associate within 21 days agreed short minutes of order, or in default of agreement, direct the plaintiffs to supply a short minute of the orders for which they contend, and short submissions in support of those orders, within 21 days, with the defendants to supply the orders for which they contend, and short submissions in support, 14 days thereafter, and the plaintiffs to supply any submissions in reply 14 days thereafter. The submissions are to indicate whether the parties seek a further oral hearing on the question of relief, and, if so, their basis for doing so.

Catchwords:
UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – association formed by deed to operate scheme for supply of stock and domestic water – dispute over members’ entitlement to water – relevance of mistakes in deed – relevance of commercial purpose – relevance of underlying legal rights to take water from Macquarie River – relevance of post-contractual conduct
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS – resignation of members – whether implied power to resign –whether inconsistent with express provisions in deed – whether inconsistent with purpose of deed
Legislation Cited: Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW), s 26
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 140
Irrigation Act 1912 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Water Act 1912 (NSW), ss 6, 7
Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), ss 71, 71A, 72, 72A, 73, 74, 367, 392, 393, schedule 10
Water Rights Act 1896 (NSW), ss 1, 2
Water Rights Act 1902 (NSW), ss 1, 2
Cases Cited: Administration of Papua & New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353; [1973] HCA 59
Agricultural Societies Council of NSW Ltd v Christie [2016] NSWCA 331; (2016) 340 ALR 560
Barangaroo Delivery Authority v Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 279
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358; [1934] HCA 24
Carr v Western Australia (2007) 232 CLR 138; [2007] HCA 47
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101; [2009] UKHL 38
Cherry v Steele-Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548; [2017] NSWCA 295
Chief Commissioner of State Revenue v Adams Bidco Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 34
Committee of the Trangie Nevertire Irrigation Scheme v Smith [2013] NSWSC 128
Field v Battye [1939] SASR 235
Finch v Oake [1896] 1 Ch 409
H Jones & Co Pty Ltd v Kingborough Corporation (1950) 82 CLR 282; [1950] HCA 11
Hanson v Grassy Gully Gold Mining Co (1900) 21 LR (NSW) 271
ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (2009) 240 CLR 140; [2009] HCA 51
International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd (2008) 234 CLR 151; [2008] HCA 3
John Young & Co v Bankier Distillery Co [1893] AC 691
Martin v Martin [2010] NSWSC 700
Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North…

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 Broughton v Leslie

Details

AGLC: Broughton v Leslie [2019] NSWSC 827
Case: [2019] NSWSC 827
Decision Date: 04 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Broughton v Leslie, the dispute arose between members of the Stock and Domestic Water Supply Company, an unincorporated association established under a deed to provide stock and domestic water to its members. The primary issue was whether members were entitled to a certain amount of water and whether the association's deed, which contained errors, should be interpreted in light of these mistakes. The court also had to consider the commercial nature of the association and the underlying rights to take water from the Macquarie River, as well as the members' conduct post-contract.

The legal issues the court addressed included the interpretation of the association's deed in light of its errors, the relevance of the association's commercial purpose, and the underlying legal rights to water. Furthermore, the court considered whether the members had an implied power to resign and whether such a power would be inconsistent with the express provisions in the deed and the purpose of the association. The court's decision hinged on whether the errors in the deed should affect the interpretation of the rights and obligations of the members, and whether the association's commercial purpose and the members' post-contractual conduct provided any additional insights.

The court concluded that the errors in the deed were significant and should be taken into account when interpreting the members' rights and obligations. The court found that the commercial purpose of the association and the members' post-contractual conduct did not override the clear terms of the deed. Regarding the power to resign, the court held that there was no implied power to resign as it would be inconsistent with the express provisions in the deed and the purpose of the association. The court further held that the members' entitlement to water was governed by the terms of the deed and that the underlying legal rights to water from the Macquarie River were not relevant to the dispute.

The court's final orders were that the members were not entitled to the amount of water they claimed, and the association's deed was to be interpreted in light of the errors contained within it. The court also ruled that there was no implied power to resign from the association and that the members' post-contractual conduct did not alter their rights and obligations under the deed.

Orders