Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd v Lindemann

Case [2013] QCA 274

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd v Lindemann [2013] QCA 274

PARTIES:

HOOKHAM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 108 463 501 as trustee for the HOOKHAM FAMILY TRUST
(appellant)
v
RODNEY CHARLES LINDEMANN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9866 of 2012
DC No 558 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 April 2013

JUDGE:

Fraser JA and Daubney and Peter Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser JA and Daubney J concurring as to the order made, Peter Lyons J dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY – where both the director of the appellant and respondent signed their names to a handwritten note that the appellant purported, together with an oral agreement, included details of an arrangement for the sale of a property owned by the respondent – where the appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in not finding an agreement for the sale of the property had taken place on 30 July 2011 – where the appellant contends that the learned trial judge misunderstood its basis for formation of the contract, as being one which was partly oral, partly written and partly evidenced by conduct – whether a contract was formed at the meeting of 30 July 2011

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – POINTS AND OBJECTIONS NOT TAKEN BELOW – GENERALLY – where the appellant sought to advance a case on appeal that was quite different from the case advanced at trial – whether by allowing the appellant to advance their case in that way would deny the respondent the opportunity to test the efficacy of alleged contractual documents – whether the general rule that the appellant is bound by the conduct of the case below is applicable

Alford v Ebbage[2004] QCA 283, cited
Auerbach v Nelson [1919] 2 Ch 383, cited
Basma v Weekes [1950] AC 441, cited
Bennett v Stewart [2008] QSC 20, considered
Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042; [1999] UKHL 47, cited
Carr v Lynch [1900] 1 Ch 613, considered
County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193, cited
Di Biase v Rezek [1971] 1 NSWLR 735, cited
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8, cited
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423; [1954] HCA 17, cited
Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206; [1960] HCA 84, cited
Kennon v Spry (2008) 238 CLR 366; [2008] HCA 56, cited
Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303, cited
Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v NSW Aboriginal Land Council (2008) 237 CLR 285

Continue reading Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd v Lindemann

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd v Lindemann [2013] QCA 274
Case
[2013] QCA 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd appealed against a decision that found no binding contract had been formed for the sale of property owned by Lindemann. The basis for the appeal was that the trial judge misunderstood the nature of the agreement, which Hookham argued was partly oral, partly written, and partly evidenced by conduct. Hookham's director and Lindemann had signed a handwritten note that Hookham claimed formed part of the contract, but the trial judge had ruled that the note was too vague and uncertain to form a binding agreement. Hookham contended that the trial judge had not correctly interpreted the evidence presented.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether a contract was formed at the meeting on 30 July 2011, and if so, what form it took. The court also considered whether Hookham could advance a new case on appeal that differed significantly from the case presented at trial. The court needed to determine if this approach would deny Lindemann the opportunity to test the efficacy of the alleged contractual documents, and whether the general principle that an appellant is bound by the conduct of the case below should apply.

The court found that Hookham's case on appeal was significantly different from the case presented at trial, and that allowing Hookham to advance this new case would indeed deny Lindemann the opportunity to test the alleged contractual documents. The court held that the general rule that an appellant is bound by the conduct of the case below applied, and therefore Hookham's appeal was dismissed with costs. The court concluded that no binding contract had been formed for the sale of the property.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.