Beazley P at [1]; McColl JA at [112]; Macfarlan JA at [127]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal;
(2) Appeal allowed;
(3) Set aside the orders made by the primary judge;
(4) Dismiss the respondents’ notice of motion;
(5) Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal, the appeal and the appellant’s costs at first instance.
Catchwords:
CONTRACT – whether binding agreement in existence – whether binding agreement was contained in correspondence between parties – whether parties’ intention was to be bound prior to execution of deed of release – whether case fell within first or fourth category recognised in Masters v Cameron – relevance of the language used by the parties – relevance of term as to confidentiality – relevance of time period for taking steps pursuant to agreement
CONTRACT – whether binding agreement in existence – whether binding agreement was contained in correspondence between parties – whether agreement incomplete – whether term as to confidentiality agreed – relevance of term as to confidentiality
AGENCY – whether solicitor had ostensible authority to bind client to a contract – whether agreement was in the context of litigation – whether solicitor had been held out as having authority to enter into a binding agreement – language used in correspondence between parties
[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 Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd [2017] NSWCA 107
Case
[2017] NSWCA 107
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Feldman v GNM Australia Ltd* concerned whether a binding agreement had been reached between the parties, Mr Feldman (the appellant) and GNM Australia Ltd (the respondent), prior to the execution of a deed of release. The dispute arose from correspondence exchanged between the parties, with the appellant contending that a binding agreement existed, while the respondent argued otherwise. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with Beazley P, McColl and Macfarlan JJA presiding.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the parties intended to be bound by the terms discussed in their correspondence, or if they intended to be bound only upon the execution of a formal deed. This required the court to consider whether the agreement, if any, was incomplete, particularly in relation to a term concerning confidentiality. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the appellant's solicitor possessed ostensible authority to bind his client to such an agreement, especially given the context of ongoing litigation.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the language used by the parties in their correspondence was critical in determining their intention. Applying the principles established in *Masters v Cameron*, the court assessed whether the parties fell into the first category (where they intended to be bound immediately, subject to a formal document being executed) or the fourth category (where they did not intend to be bound until the formal document was executed). The court found that the correspondence indicated an intention to be bound, notwithstanding the contemplation of a formal deed. The presence of a confidentiality term did not render the agreement incomplete, and the solicitor was found to have ostensible authority to bind the appellant.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and dismissed the respondent's notice of motion. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the summons for leave to appeal, the appeal itself, and the appellant's costs at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant leave to appeal;
(2) Appeal allowed;
(3) Set aside the orders made by the primary judge;
(4) Dismiss the respondents’ notice of motion;
(5) Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal, the appeal and the appellant’s costs at first instance.