Legal Research
Cases
Darmanin v Cowan

Darmanin v Cowan

Case [2010] NSWSC 1118 1 October 2010

Unconscionable Conduct

Undue Influence

Contract Formation

Intention to Create Legal Relations

Equity

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Darmanin v Cowan [2010] NSWSC 1118

HEARING DATE(S): 28 and 29 June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 October 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Ward J

DECISION: Plaintiff's claim dismissed

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - unconscionability - undue influence - cottage built on defendants’ property at plaintiff’s expense - relationship between plaintiff and defendants broke down - plaintiff required to leave defendants’ property - whether unconscionable for defendants not to reimburse plaintiff for costs of construction of cottage - whether agreement or arrangement between defendants and plaintiff procured by way of unconscientious conduct or undue influence - HELD - no benefit unconscionably retained by defendants in circumstances - defendants did not act unconscionably or exercise undue influence in their dealings with plaintiff - CONTRACTS - whether intention to create legal relations in a domestic or social context - whether relief under Contracts Review Act - HELD - no intention to create legal relations - plaintiff’s claim dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd & Anor v John Edward Atkinson & Ors [2010] NSWSC 635
Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145; [1886-90] All ER Rep 90
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v FCT [1983] 1 NSWLR 1; (1983) 44 ALR 607
Attorney-General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557
Australasian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Limited (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 174
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Ball-Guymer v Livantes (1990) 102 FLR 327
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody [1990] 1 QB 23
Barnes v Addy [1874] 9 Ch App. 244
Barrier Wharfs Limited v W Scott Fell & Co Limited (1908) 5 CLR 647
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Limited v G R Securities Pty Limited (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bennett v Horgan (unreported, NSWSC, 3 June 1994)
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Bovaird v Frost [2009] NSWSC 337
Brandi v Mingot (1976) 12 ALR 551
Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66; 194 CLR 457; 158 ALR 66; 72 ALJR 1525
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Brusewitz v Brown [1923] NZLR 1106
Buckpitt v Oates [1968] 1 All ER 1145
Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VR 840
Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447
Commissioner of State Revenue v Uniqema Pty Ltd (2004) 9 VR 523; 2004 ATC 4579; (2004) 56 ATR 19; [2004] VSCA 82
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389; (unreported, NSWCA, 31…

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 Darmanin v Cowan

Details

AGLC: Darmanin v Cowan [2010] NSWSC 1118
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1118
Decision Date: 1 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Darmanin v Cowan, the plaintiff, Darmanin, sought reimbursement from the defendants, Cowan, for the costs of building a cottage on the defendants' property. The relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading to the plaintiff's eviction from the property. Darmanin claimed that it was unconscionable for the Cowans not to reimburse him for the construction costs, alleging that the Cowans had procured the agreement through unconscientious conduct or undue influence. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether the Cowans had unconscionably retained a benefit procured through their conduct or undue influence and whether there was an intention to create legal relations between the parties. Additionally, the court considered whether the Cowans had acted unconscionably or exercised undue influence in their dealings with the plaintiff.

The court found that the Cowans did not act unconscionably or exercise undue influence in their dealings with the plaintiff. The court held that there was no intention to create legal relations between the parties, as the agreement was made in a domestic or social context. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court also found that the Cowans did not retain any benefit unconscionably and that the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Contracts Review Act was not applicable in the circumstances of this case.

Orders