DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 67 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: DHJPM Pty Limited v Blackthorn Resources Limited (formerly called AIM Resources Limited) [2011] NSWCA 348
Hearing dates:15 August 2011
Decision date: 30 November 2011
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Meagher JA at [2]
Handley AJA at [92]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: ESTOPPEL - equitable estoppel - lease of commercial office premises taken by appellant on basis that premises would be occupied as to part by respondent - subsequent refusal by respondent to occupy that part - claim to enforce an equitable estoppel - issues on appeal - findings of fact challenged - circumstances in which equitable proprietary or promissory estoppels might arise - whether equitable proprietary estoppel in circumstances of this case - requirement that expectation be intended and understood to affect legal relations - whether unjust or unconscionable for respondent to depart from expectation that it would enter into a sub-lease - whether appellant entitled to relief by way of equitable compensation.
Legislation Cited: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Real Property Act 1900
Cases Cited: Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering In.Gl.En. SpA [2003] 2 AC 541
Amalgamated Property Co v Texas Bank [1982] QB 84
Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen's Gardens) Ltd [1987] 1 AC 114
Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Self-Serve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Ltd [1993] HCA 15; (1993) 177 CLR 485
Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer PLC [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752; 4 All ER 713
Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] HCA 39; (1990) 170 CLR 394
Crabb v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84
Duke of Beaufort v Patrick (1853) 17 Beavan 60 [51 ER 954]
East India Co v Vincent (1740) 2 Atk 83 [26 ER 451]
Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92
Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712
Gillet v Holt [2001] Ch 210
Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1999) 196 CLR 101
Laird v Birkenhead Rail Co [1859] Johns 500 [70 ER 519]
Legione v Hateley [1983] HCA 11; (1983) 152 CLR 406
Metropolitan Transit Authority (Vic) v Waverley Transit Pty Ltd [1991] 1 VR 207
Mobil Oil Australia Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 475
Plimmer v Mayor of Wellington (1884) 9 App Cas 699
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129
Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] NSWCA 348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between DHJPM Pty Ltd (the appellant) and Blackthorn Resources Ltd (the respondent) regarding a lease of commercial office premises. The appellant contended that it had entered into the lease on the understanding that the respondent would occupy a portion of those premises, and subsequently sought to enforce an equitable estoppel against the respondent due to its refusal to occupy that part. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the circumstances gave rise to an equitable proprietary or promissory estoppel, and if so, whether it would be unjust or unconscionable for the respondent to depart from the expectation that it would enter into a sub-lease. The Court was also required to consider whether the appellant was entitled to relief by way of equitable compensation. These issues involved a challenge to the findings of fact made at trial and an examination of the requirements for the creation of equitable estoppels, particularly the necessity for the expectation to be intended and understood to affect legal relations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. While the precise reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the Court did not find that the elements of equitable estoppel were satisfied in the circumstances of the case, or that the appellant was entitled to the relief sought. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.