Hookham Constructions Pty Ltd v Lindemann

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.