Legal Research
Cases
Currie v Currie

Currie v Currie

Case [2013] WASC 428 29 November 2013

Interlocutory Orders

Breach of Contract

Estoppel

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: CURRIE -v- CURRIE [2013] WASC 428

CORAM: ALLANSON J

HEARD: 26 NOVEMBER 2013

DELIVERED : 29 NOVEMBER 2013

FILE NO/S: CIV 1237 of 2013

BETWEEN: BRUCE MICHAEL CURRIE
Plaintiff
AND
GRAEME JOHN JAMES CURRIE
First Defendant
ANDREW JOHN CURRIE
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Interlocutory injunction - Breach of inferred contract - Estoppel - Relevant principles - Sufficiently arguable case - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Interlocutory injunction granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr P G Donovan
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     MDS Legal
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person

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

Ashton v Pratt [No 2] [2012] NSWSC 3
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 208 CLR 199
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424
Darmanin v Cowan [2010] NSWSC 1119
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd [1988] 14 NSWLR 523
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8
Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72
Galaxidis v Galaxidis [2004] NSWCA 111
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Laidlaw v Hillier Hewitt Elsley Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 44
Lighting By Design (Aust) Pty Ltd v Cannington Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 23; (2008) 35 WAR 520
Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92
RJ Baker Nominees Pty Ltd v Parsons Management Group Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 128
SMS Rental (WA) Pty Ltd v Cahma Life Nominees Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 359
Twinside Pty Ltd v Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 110

ALLANSON J: There are three parties to this action: a father and his two sons. They are farmers in the wheat belt area, with properties in the Bruce Rock region.
The first defendant Graeme Currie is now 73. For some years he has left the running of the farm to two of his sons, Bruce (the plaintiff) and Andrew (the second defendant). From around 2003, the farm has been divided with each son separately farming on part of the land. These proceedings question the nature of the arrangements under which that was done.
The common practice in cases where several members of the one family, with the one family name, are parties is to refer to the parties by their given names. I will follow that practice, and intend no disrespect to any party in doing so.
Bruce says that his father entered into a contract to transfer part of the farm land to him immediately. The legal title in the land was to remain in Graeme until either Bruce paid stamp duty…

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 Currie v Currie

Details

AGLC: Currie v Currie [2013] WASC 428
Case: [2013] WASC 428
Decision Date: 29 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v Currie involved a dispute between the parties over an alleged breach of an inferred contract. The case was heard by the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted in relation to the alleged breach. The central issue in the case was whether the appellant had established a sufficiently arguable case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The court had to consider the relevant principles in determining whether the appellant had demonstrated that their case was sufficiently arguable, and whether the case turned on its own facts.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, including the need for the appellant to demonstrate that their case was sufficiently arguable and that the case turned on its own facts. The court found that the appellant had established a sufficiently arguable case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The court noted that the appellant had demonstrated that there was evidence to support their claim that there had been a breach of an inferred contract, and that the case turned on its own facts. The court also considered the principle of estoppel, and found that the appellant had demonstrated that there was a risk of prejudice if an interlocutory injunction was not granted.

The court concluded that the appellant had established a sufficiently arguable case for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the appellant had demonstrated that there was evidence to support their claim that there had been a breach of an inferred contract, and that the case turned on its own facts. The court also considered the principle of estoppel, and found that the appellant had demonstrated that there was a risk of prejudice if an interlocutory injunction was not granted. The court granted the interlocutory injunction, and noted that the case would be determined on its own facts at a later date. The final orders of the court were that the interlocutory injunction be granted, and that the case be listed for further hearing.

Orders