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:
Solicitors:
Appellant (self-represented)
D P Robinson SC / M Hazan (Respondent)
Not applicable (Appellant)
Shmilovits Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/381607 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- 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
- AGLC
- Jeffreys v Sheer [2025] NSWCA 31
- Case
- [2025] NSWCA 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.