Henderson v Miles

Henderson and Miles were the parties involved in the dispute, which pertained to a domestic arrangement where Henderson constructed a dwelling on Miles' property. The agreement was that Henderson could reside in the dwelling as long as she did not vacate it. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the nature of the agreement and the legal implications of the arrangement. The central legal issues before the court were whether the arrangement constituted a binding contract and, if so, what the consequences were for the parties involved.

The court examined the evidence presented and determined that there was insufficient proof to rebut the presumption that the arrangement was not a binding contract. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties and the circumstances surrounding the construction of the dwelling. The court held that the agreement was not a binding contract because there was no clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations. However, the court found that equity could provide a remedy for Henderson. The court held that Miles was unconscionable to retain the benefit of the dwelling without providing Henderson with the minimum equity necessary to remedy this unconscionability.

The court concluded that Henderson was entitled to the minimum equity necessary to remedy the unconscionable retention of the benefit of the dwelling by Miles. The court did not specify the exact amount of equity but noted that it would be sufficient to remedy the unconscionability. The court's decision was based on the principle that equity would intervene to prevent one party from retaining a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct. The court did not make any further orders beyond the determination of the equity to which Henderson was entitled.