Jeffreys v Sheer

Case [2025] NSWCA 31


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeffreys v Sheer [2025] NSWCA 31
Hearing dates: 26 February 2025
Decision date: 11 March 2025
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Adamson JA at [2];
Basten AJA at [89]
Decision:

(1)   Dismiss the appeal.

(2)   Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Catchwords:

APPEALS — Contracts — Formation — where primary judge found intention to form a binding and enforceable contract in the terms of a letter — whether primary judge erred in assessment of circumstances — whether primary judge erred in assessment of parties’ intentions — whether contract excluded by prior agreements

APPEALS — Procedural fairness — Evidence — where primary judge preferred evidence of plaintiff as to key disputed conversations — where primary judge regarded evidence of defendant as “self-interested” — whether error in treatment of evidence of witnesses

APPEALS — Procedural fairness — where slight disparity between pleaded case and case as conducted — where counsel for defendant at first instance confirmed no prejudice — whether defendant denied procedural fairness

APPEALS — Further evidence — Power to receive further evidence — where appellant made informal application to adduce fresh evidence on day of hearing — whether leave should be granted to admit fresh evidence

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2)

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A

Cases Cited:

Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309

Australian Broadcasting Corp v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540

Banque Commerciale SA (En Liqn) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11

Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435; [1954] HCA 16

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471; [2004] HCA 55

Esso Australia Resources Limited v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 201 CLR 49; [1999] HCA 67

Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251

Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403

Preston v Harbour Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 216

R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; (1990) 48 A Crim R 385

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bruce Michael Jeffreys (Appellant)
Itshak Sheer (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Appellant (self-represented)
D P Robinson SC / M Hazan (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Not applicable (Appellant)
Shmilovits Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/381607
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:

Sheer v Jeffreys [2024] NSWSC 1161

Date of Decision:
13 September 2024
Before:
Kunc J
File Number(s):
2021/162425

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Bruce Jeffreys appealed against orders in favour of the respondent, Itshak Sheer, for specific performance of an agreement which required Mr Jeffreys to purchase Mr Sheer’s shares in Dresden Optics Pty Ltd (Dresden) for $2.5 million.

In 2014,…

Continue reading Jeffreys v Sheer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jeffreys v Sheer [2025] NSWCA 31
Case
[2025] NSWCA 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Jeffreys v Sheer* concerned a dispute between the parties regarding the existence and terms of a contract. The primary judge had found that a binding and enforceable contract was formed in accordance with the terms of a letter exchanged between the parties. The appellant sought to challenge this finding on appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in assessing the circumstances and the parties' intentions when concluding that a contract was formed, and whether any prior agreements excluded the contract in question. Further, the court considered whether the primary judge had erred in their treatment of the evidence, particularly in preferring the evidence of the respondent and regarding the appellant's evidence as "self-interested." The court also examined whether the appellant had been denied procedural fairness, noting a slight disparity between the pleaded case and the case conducted at trial, though counsel for the appellant at first instance had confirmed no prejudice. Finally, the court considered an informal application to adduce fresh evidence on the day of the hearing.

Mitchelmore and Adamson JJA, and Basten AJA, dismissed the appeal. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence or the parties' intentions, upholding the conclusion that a binding contract had been formed. The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and refused leave to admit the fresh evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the appeal.

(2) Order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.