Legal Research
Cases
El-Bayeh v Bayeh

El-Bayeh v Bayeh

Case [2018] NSWSC 775 31 May 2018

Admissibility of Evidence

Contract Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: El-Bayeh v Bayeh [2018] NSWSC 775
Hearing dates: 21-23 August 2017; 25-26 October 2017
Date of orders: 31 May 2018
Decision date: 31 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:

(1) The proceedings are dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs on an ordinary basis.
Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – Credibility – whether witness is giving truthful evidence – Whether evidence is corroborated by other witnesses, contemporaneous records or reflects the most logical version of events

CONTRACTS – Formation – Agreement – whether the parties formed an oral agreement – Variation of agreement – Express Terms – Implied terms – whether terms are necessary for the effective or reasonable operation of the contract – Breach of contract – Right to damages

CONTRACT – Misleading conduct under statute – Misleading or deceptive conduct – Representations – Whether representation was made

ESTOPPEL – Estoppel by representation – Detrimental reliance – Whether representation was made
EQUITY – Unjust enrichment – Whether defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 91(2)
Cases Cited: AAP Industries Pty Ltd v Rehau Pte Ltd [2017] NSWSC 390
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Chikal Pty Limited & Anor v Youssef El Bayeh & Anor [2011] NSWSC 230
Chikal Pty Ltd v BI Construction Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1286
County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193
Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201; [2003] HCA 22
John Holland Pty Limited v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 451
Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 313
Priestley v Priestley [2017] NSWCA 155
Winter v Nemeth [2018] NSWSC 644
Yousseff El Bayeh v Samir Bayeh & Ors [2011] NSWSC 101
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yousseff El-Bayeh (Plaintiff)
Samir Bayeh (First Defendant)
Issam Issa (Second Defendant)
BI Constructions (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Finnane (Plaintiff)
J G Simpkins (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Uther Webster & Evans (Plaintiff)
Thurlow Fisher Lawyers (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2013/363418
Publication restriction: Nil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The pleading framework
Common ground
Credibility of Joe, Samir and Sam
Credibility of Joe
Credibility of Samir
Credibility of Sam
Conclusion on Joe, Samir and Sam’s credibility

Disputed facts
The initial conversation – late 2001 or early 2002
Findings as to the meeting in late 2001 or early 2002

Meeting after 7 November 2002 before settlement of initial and additional properties

Settlement of properties
Joe’s payments in relation to the additional properties
Conversation in late January or early February 2003 – formation of oral agreement
Joe’s version
Samir’s version
Sam’s version
Findings

Meeting with Michael Saadie (the broker) in 2002/2003
Joe’s version
Samir’s version
Michael Saadie’s version
Sam’s version
Findings

The alleged variation of the agreement in May 2003
Meeting in Parramatta in March 2006
Loan repayment calculations sheet dated…

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 El-Bayeh v Bayeh

Details

AGLC: El-Bayeh v Bayeh [2018] NSWSC 775
Case: [2018] NSWSC 775
Decision Date: 31 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of El-Bayeh v Bayeh, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement with the defendants, who were the plaintiff's former business partners. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached the agreement by misappropriating the business's assets. The defendants denied any wrongdoing, arguing that no enforceable agreement existed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the formation of an oral agreement, and whether any implied terms existed that would render the agreement enforceable. The court also needed to determine if there was misleading or deceptive conduct under statute, whether an estoppel applied, and if there was unjust enrichment.

The court examined the evidence presented and found that the plaintiff's testimony was not entirely reliable, as it was not corroborated by other witnesses or contemporaneous records. The court considered the most logical version of events based on the evidence before it. The court held that no oral agreement existed between the parties, as there was no meeting of minds, and the alleged agreement lacked specificity and certainty. The court also found that the defendants did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, and no estoppel applied. Finally, the court found no unjust enrichment, as the defendants did not benefit at the plaintiff's expense.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an enforceable oral agreement, and the other claims were not substantiated by the evidence. The court emphasised the importance of clear and documented agreements, particularly in business relationships, to avoid disputes and misunderstandings.

Orders