Hoy v Hurst-Meyers (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Hoy v Hurst-Meyers (No 2)
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 58
Hearing Date(s):	21, 22, 25 March 2022
DecisionDate:	30 March 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [74]
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – DEBT OR LIQUIDATED DAMAGE – where the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the plaintiff is no longer a partner in a partnership with the first and second defendant – where the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the partnership is dissolved – where the plaintiff seeks an order that the first and second defendant pay the plaintiff for his contributions made during the partnership – residential contract for sale of land – whether the contract is enforceable
Legislation Cited:	Partnership Act 1964 (ACT) s 48
Cases Cited:	Hoy v Hurst-Meyers [2022] ACTSC 57 Hurst-Meyers v Public Trustee and Guardian for the ACT [2018] ACTSC 61
Parties:	G R Hoy ( Plaintiff) R G Hurst-Meyers (First Defendant) RHM Industries Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel A Costin ( Plaintiff) Self-Represented (First Defendant) Self-Represented (Second Defendant)
Solicitors Elringtons Lawyers ( Plaintiff) Self-Represented (First Defendant) Self-Represented (Second Defendant)
File Number(s):	SC 383 of 2019

Elkaim J

The plaintiff says that the defendants are indebted to him in the sum of $200,000. He wishes this sum to be paid to him, together with interest.

The plaintiff has also asked for declarations concerning the termination of a Partnership Agreement.

The dispute between the parties revolved around two documents: a Residential Contract (for sale of land) signed in July 2016 and a Partnership Agreement made in August 2016. The defendants referred to the Residential Contract as a Contract of Sale.

The plaintiff’s case was that the parties were only bound by the Partnership Agreement; the defendants’ case was that both documents were intrinsically linked and one could not be enforced without the concurrent enforcement of the other.

As will be seen below, I am satisfied that the only enforceable agreement that ever existed between the parties was the Partnership Agreement.

The plaintiff’s claim is described in an Originating Claim and a Statement of Claim, both filed on 31 July 2019. The Defence to the claim was filed on 13 August 2020. I note an earlier Defence had been struck out (on 24 March 2020). The current Defence was filed in court with the leave of McWilliam AsJ on 13 August 2020. Her Honour no doubt took the view that its form was the best that could be hoped for.

The Amended Defence, and Counterclaim, unfortunately do not follow the “normal” rules of pleadings, so it is a little difficult to identify the issues between the parties.

The Reply, filed on 1 September 2020, does assist in defining the issues, but some vagueness remains.

The plaintiff filed two affidavits in support of his claim. The first is his own, affirmed on 24 September 2020. The second is that of his solicitor, Mr Mitchell Evelyn, affirmed on 30 April 2020.

The orders made by McWilliam AsJ on 13 August…

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hoy v Hurst-Meyers (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] ACTSC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard a case between G R Hoy (the plaintiff) and R G Hurst-Meyers (the first defendant) and RHM Industries Pty Ltd (the second defendant) concerning a debt of $200,000 and the termination of a partnership agreement. The case was based on two documents: a Residential Contract for the sale of land signed in July 2016 and a Partnership Agreement made in August 2016. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were indebted to him in the sum of $200,000 and sought a declaration that the partnership was dissolved and that he was no longer a partner in the partnership with the defendants. The defendants argued that the Residential Contract and Partnership Agreement were part of a single, overriding agreement, and that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

The court found that the only enforceable agreement between the parties was the Partnership Agreement. The Residential Contract was not part of the legal relationship between the parties, and the defendants' attempts to assert its enforceability were unsuccessful. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw from the partnership and receive his $200,000 contribution back, along with interest. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff $220,142.19, jointly and severally, and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by the parties, including affidavits, emails, and text messages. The court found that the plaintiff had followed the lead of the first defendant in their commercial dealings, but was not as inexperienced as the first defendant suggested. The court also found that the first defendant had made numerous assertions without evidence and had attempted to mislead the court. The court took these factors into account when making its decision.

Orders