Legal Research
Cases
Jones v Baker

Jones v Baker

Case [2002] NSWSC 89 12 February 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Jones v Baker [2002] NSWSC 89

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1226/02

HEARING DATE(S): 8 February 2002 [Then written submissions]

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 February 2002

PARTIES :

Warwick Pryce Jones (P)
Victor William Baker (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

COUNSEL : T Davie (P)
G Blake (D)

SOLICITORS: Jones King Lawyers (P)
Christopher M Edwards (D)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS [75]- Part performance- Ambit of doctrine- Applies beyond specific performance suits. PROFESSIONS [95]- Solicitor- Duty to client when taking security for own costs.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 23C
Legal Profession Act 1987
Real Property Act 1900, ss 74F(5)
74K, 74L
Real Property Regulation 1998

CASES CITED: Adamson v Hayes (1973) 130 CLR 276
ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Widin (1990) 26 FCR 21
Bush v Hanlon (Young J, 4 August 1998)
Carr v McDonald's Australia Ltd (1994) 63 FCR 358
Connell v Bond Corp Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 352
Drulroad Pty Ltd v Gibson (1992) NSW Conv R 55-637
Dykstra v Dykstra (1991) 22 NSWLR 556
Elibank-Murray v Dunne (1982) NSW Conv R 55-048
Gasiunas v Meinhold (1964) 6 FLR 182
Gummon v Barter (1899) 1 WALR 58
Hammon v O'Brien (1990) 5 BPR 11,163
Johnson v Fesenmeyer (1858) 25 Beav 88; 53 ER 569
Kymbo Pty Ltd v Paxton Management Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 792
Langdon v Pearce (1899) 20 LR (NSW) (L) 329
Lyddon v Moss (1859 ) 4 De G & J 104; 45 ER 41
Mason v Clarke [1955] AC 778
McConville v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1991) NSW Conv R 55-602
O'Rourke v Hoeven [1974] 1 NSWLR 622
Shepherd v Houston [1927] SASR 144
Tolhurst v Crickett Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 1203
Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291
Trowmet Pty Ltd v Lew (1992) V Conv R 54-427
Unimin Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 45 LGRA 338
Vandyke v Vandyke (1976) 12 ALR 621
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

DECISION: Summons dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

1226 of 2002

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Tuesday 12 February 2002

JONES v BAKER

Judgment

: The plaintiff seeks to extend a caveat which he placed upon the defendant’s title to property at Kurrajong. He also seeks a declaration that he has an equitable interest in that property by virtue of an oral agreement allegedly made about 5 October 2001.

2 I heard the oral argument as Duty Judge last Friday. Plaintiff’s counsel wished to expand his submissions. Accordingly, I set the matter down for judgment today and received further written submissions yesterday. The matter has some urgency as the defendant proposes to complete the sale of the relevant property this afternoon.

3 The plaintiff is a solicitor. He is a member of at least three firms of solicitors each trading under the name “Jones King Lawyers” in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Although the firms use the one letterhead, the evidence is that they consist of the plaintiff plus different…

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.

Continue reading Jones v Baker

Details

AGLC: Jones v Baker [2002] NSWSC 89
Case: [2002] NSWSC 89
Decision Date: 12 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Baker, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract for the sale of land against the defendant, who was the vendor. The dispute arose after the plaintiff had performed part of the contract by transferring the purchase price to the defendant, but the defendant refused to complete the sale. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the doctrine of part performance could be invoked to enforce the contract outside the context of a specific performance suit. Additionally, the court had to determine the duty of a solicitor who had taken security for their own costs from a client.

The court found that the doctrine of part performance is not limited to situations where specific performance is sought. Instead, it can be applied more broadly to enforce contracts where one party has acted in reliance on an agreement that has not been formalised in writing. In this case, the court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently performed the contract by transferring the purchase price, and thus, the defendant was bound by the agreement. Regarding the solicitor's duty, the court held that a solicitor must ensure that any security taken for their own costs does not disadvantage the client, especially when the client is in a vulnerable position. The court found that the solicitor had acted improperly by taking security in this instance.

The court ordered that the contract for the sale of land be enforced, requiring the defendant to complete the sale. Additionally, the court ruled that the solicitor must repay the security taken from the client, along with interest, and compensate the client for any costs associated with the enforcement of the contract. This decision underscores the importance of the doctrine of part performance and the need for solicitors to act with integrity and in the best interests of their clients.

Orders