Hunt v Barlow

The case of Hunt v Barlow was before the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the plaintiff sought to enforce an agreement to transfer his interest in certain properties to the defendant, the deceased's estate. The plaintiff claimed that he had an agreement with his deceased business partner, the defendant, to release certain debts and take the business assets in exchange for transferring his interest in the properties to the defendant. The defendants, as the estate of the deceased, denied the existence of such an agreement.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff and the deceased had indeed entered into an agreement to transfer the plaintiff's interest in the properties to the deceased. This involved assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and the balance of probabilities. The court noted that the deceased was no longer available to provide evidence, and the plaintiff's claim relied heavily on the testimony of a single witness who had been criminally convicted for dishonesty. The court also considered the demeanour of the witness, irregular accounting records, and the observations of Isaacs J in Plunket v Bull.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim failed on the balance of probabilities. The court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had established the existence of the agreement to transfer his interest in the properties to the deceased. The court found the witness's evidence to be lacking in credibility, particularly in light of the witness's criminal history and the irregularities in the accounting records. The court also noted that the defendants had presented a strong case against the existence of such an agreement. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The court made no orders for costs, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.