Bull v Lee

In *Bull v Lee*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the Appellants and the Respondent concerning payments due under a Management Agreement. The core of the disagreement revolved around the construction of the agreement, specifically whether it was void for uncertainty and how to calculate the outstanding amount owed by the Respondent. The Appellants sought to recover a sum they believed was due, while the Respondent contended the agreement was legally incoherent and that payments had ceased due to issues with its terms.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Management Agreement was void for uncertainty, ambiguity, or internal inconsistency, particularly in relation to the amount due. Secondly, the court had to consider whether a term quoting a price "including interest" at a particular rate imposed a binding obligation to pay interest at that specified rate. The court also had to address the appropriate costs orders, given that the trial judgment resulted in a sum significantly less than initially claimed and well within the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court.

The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, affirmed the trial judge's findings that the parties had executed a Management Agreement before July 1999, and that the Respondent was obliged to make payments under its terms. The court found that payments made prior to 1 July 1999 could not have reduced the purchase price under the agreement entered into on that date. The court concluded that, based on the admissions and the judge's findings regarding payments, a sum of less than $20,000 remained unpaid when payments ceased in November 2004. The court provided a spreadsheet calculation for the parties to consider and make further submissions on.

Regarding costs, the Appellants were entitled to judgment for an amount significantly less than they sought. The court ordered that the costs of the trial should not exceed the costs recoverable in the Local Court, acknowledging that the final judgment amount fell within its jurisdictional limit. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal, and the Respondent was granted a Suitors' Fund certificate.