Googe v Spoljaric

The case of Googe v Spoljaric involved the plaintiff, Mr Googe, who claimed against the defendants, Ms Spoljaric and her son-in-law Mr Ivkovic, regarding issues of contract variation, allocation of payments, and alleged breaches. The court was required to determine whether a subsequent agreement varied the initial contract, how payments made by the plaintiff should be allocated between two contracts, and whether there were any breaches of contract terms. Additionally, the court needed to consider if the plaintiff had repudiated the contract and what remedies were available in both contract and tort law.

The court examined whether the plaintiff and Ms Spoljaric had entered into a binding variation of the initial contract reducing the purchase price of a taxi plate. It was determined that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of such a contract, as there was no evidence of consideration provided by the plaintiff for the alleged promise by Ms Spoljaric to reduce the price. The court also found that the plaintiff did not breach the terms of the CT 199 Contract by missing payments, as he had made all required payments, including the rank fees.

The court concluded that the initial contracts remained enforceable, and there was no enforceable variation to the terms. The plaintiff’s allocation of payments was assessed, and it was found that he had made all required payments according to the initial terms of the contracts. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no breaches or repudiations on either side.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by his claim and that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. This included the costs associated with the defence of the counterclaim, which the court found the plaintiff was not entitled to pursue.