Legal Research
Cases
Day v Gapes

Day v Gapes

Case [2025] SADC 83 11 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
DAY v GAPES & ORS
[2025] SADC 83
Judgment of her Honour Judge Thomas
11 July 2025
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS - MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT
The applicant was an employee of the third respondent company from July 2014 until 2 December 2020. From 26 July 2017 until his employment ended, he was also a director of that company. The applicant claims that in a meeting in January 2017 with the two men who controlled the third and fourth respondent companies, a binding agreement was made to gift him a 5% shareholding in each company and appoint him as a director of the third respondent company. The applicant further claims that in a meeting in April 2017 with the two men and their external accountant and tax adviser, it was agreed to vary the earlier agreement to not formalise his 5% shareholding and treat his shareholder dividends as an employment bonus for tax purposes.
This case raises questions about the formation of a binding contract in the circumstances of informal dealings between the parties over several years in the absence of a contemporaneous written agreement. It is uncontentious that ultimately a binding contract was made for the applicant to be paid amounts calculated by reference to a percentage of shareholder dividends. The central factual dispute concerns the nature of the agreed payment arrangement. Was an agreement made for the applicant to be treated as the equivalent of a 5% shareholder in the companies (as he contended) or was it a bonus arrangement tied to his employment that only endured until his employment ended (as the respondents contended)?
At trial, the applicant did not press his primary case that he was a 5% shareholder in the companies. He was not. The real issue was his pleaded first alternative claim that an agreement was made to treat him as the equivalent of a 5% shareholder that entitled him to receive 5% of the dividends declared by the companies in perpetuity.
The applicant’s pleaded second alternative claim concerned a written profit sharing agreement prepared by the third respondent company’s accountant for its auditor in September 2020 on terms that were intended to record the existing agreement between the parties but did not completely.
Held, dismissing the applicant’s claims in their entirety as follows.
1.   On the reliable evidence as to what was said, there was no binding agreement made in the January 2017 meeting for the applicant to be gifted a shareholding in either company. In the proven circumstances, objectively viewed, there was no mutual intention manifested for the creation of a binding agreement on any matter discussed at this meeting.
2.   On the reliable evidence as to what was said, there was no binding agreement made at the April 2017 meeting to not formalise the applicant’s gift of a 5% shareholding in the companies and instead treat him as the equivalent of a 5% shareholder in all…

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 Day v Gapes

Details

AGLC: Day v Gapes [2025] SADC 83
Case: [2025] SADC 83
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Day v Gapes, the Federal Court was presented with a dispute regarding the validity of a contract. The plaintiff, Day, sought to enforce an agreement with Gapes, the defendant, for the sale of certain goods. Gapes denied the existence of a binding contract and refused to honour the terms of the agreement. The primary issue for the court was whether the parties had indeed entered into a binding contract. The court needed to determine if the necessary elements of a contract were present, including offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

The court examined the communications between the parties to ascertain whether there was a clear offer and acceptance. It also considered whether there was an intention to create legal relations and if there was sufficient consideration to support the enforceability of the contract. Ultimately, the court found that although the parties had engaged in negotiations and made statements that could be construed as an offer and acceptance, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parties had reached a mutual understanding and agreement on all material terms. The court held that the parties had not reached a point of finality in their negotiations and therefore had not formed a binding contract.

As a result of this finding, the court ruled in favour of Gapes, dismissing Day's claim for enforcement of the alleged contract. The court determined that there were no grounds upon which a binding contract could be established, given the absence of a clear intention to create legal relations and the lack of a mutual agreement on all essential terms. The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

Orders