1. Dismiss the plaintiff’s amended summons and points of claim with costs. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, declare that the document purportedly executed by the parties as a deed on 21 September 2012 is not binding and enforceable. 3. Order the plaintiff to deliver up to the defendants’ solicitors within 14 days any originals of the documents signed by the defendants on 21 September 2012 that remain in the plaintiff’s possession custody or control. 4. Declare that, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, the defendants are entitled to the moneys held in a trust account in the name of the defendants’ solicitors and representing 50% of the net settlement proceeds from the sale of the property known as 170 Menangle Road, Menangle Park, in the State of New South Wales, and any remaining funds out of the net settlement proceeds from the sale of the defendants’ business.
Catchwords:
EQUITY – Equitable interests in property – Claim by plaintiff to a one-half beneficial interest in real property and other assets pursuant to a document purportedly executed as a deed – Finding that defendants’ execution of the purported deed was not witnessed by the person who later signed the document as a witness – Held the document was not validly executed as a deed
CONTRACTS – Formation – Whether the purported deed was enforceable as a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants for good consideration – Held that the only consideration for the agreement recorded in the purported deed was past consideration and that the defendants’ subsequent conduct did not otherwise amount to acceptance of the purported deed – Held there was no implicit acceptance by the taking of a benefit under the purported deed
DEEDS – Whether valid attestation of purported deed where person present at time of signing later attests in affidavit to the witnessing of the execution of the deed – Held it was a requirement for the valid execution of a deed that the attesting witness be present at the time of signing and sign as witness at that time
AGENCY – Ostensible authority – Whether the plaintiff by his conduct held others out as authorised to negotiate or make representations on his behalf in relation to the use to be made of the document purportedly executed as a deed
CONSUMER LAW – Cross-claim for relief in respect of alleged misleading or deceptive conduct by representation, made through the plaintiff’s agent(s), that document purportedly executed as a deed would be put “in a drawer” and used only as “security” – Alternatively, cross-claim for relief on the basis of unconscionable conduct in plaintiff now seeking to enforce the purported deed
[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 Brown v Tavern Operator Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Brown v Tavern Operator Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1290
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1290
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Brown v Tavern Operator Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning the validity of a purported deed, which the plaintiff claimed should confer a one-half beneficial interest in real property and other assets to him. The defendants, Tavern Operator Pty Ltd, denied the validity of the deed and contested the plaintiff’s claims. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the purported deed was validly executed as a deed, whether it was enforceable as a contract, and if there was ostensible authority or misleading or deceptive conduct by the plaintiff or his agents. The court needed to determine if the defendants had accepted the terms of the purported deed and whether there was any unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff.
The court found that the purported deed was not validly executed as a deed because the person who later attested to witnessing the execution was not present at the time of signing. The court also held that the purported deed was not enforceable as a contract because the only consideration for the agreement was past consideration and there was no subsequent conduct by the defendants that amounted to acceptance of the deed. Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not hold out others as authorised to negotiate or make representations on his behalf regarding the use of the purported deed. Regarding the cross-claims, the court found no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct by the plaintiff.
The final orders of the court were that the purported deed was not validly executed as a deed, it was not enforceable as a contract, and there was no ostensible authority or misleading or deceptive conduct by the plaintiff or his agents. The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.