Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd (No 4)

The case before the court involved Di Liristi, a developer, who sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement against Matautia Developments Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the defendant was bound by the terms of an oral agreement to construct a hotel on a specified site. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant argued that there was no binding contract and that any alleged agreement was not enforceable due to lack of consideration and formality. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff could provide sufficient evidence to establish the existence and terms of the alleged oral agreement.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiff could successfully establish the terms of an oral agreement and if expert evidence could be used to substantiate the plaintiff's case. The court examined the admissibility of expert opinion evidence on the enforceability of oral agreements in the context of construction contracts. The court had to consider whether the expert's opinion on the enforceability of the alleged agreement was reliable and whether it fell within the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

In determining the outcome, the court held that the plaintiff could not rely on expert opinion evidence to establish the enforceability of the oral agreement. The court found that the expert's opinion did not fall within the recognised exceptions to the hearsay rule and could not be used to prove the existence of the agreement or its terms. The court further held that the plaintiff's case was based on hearsay evidence and lacked sufficient corroboration to establish the existence of the alleged oral agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.