Joseph Manassa v John Chesher - [2000] NSWSC 252

CITATION: JOSEPH MANASSA v JOHN CHESHER & ANOR. [2000] NSWSC 252

CURRENT JURISDICTION: EQUITY

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4542/1996

HEARING DATE(S): 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 MARCH 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 11 April 2000

PARTIES :

JOSEPH MANASSA (Plaintiff)
JOHN CHESHER (First Defendant)
TONY SAHYOUN (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Simos J

COUNSEL : G.P. McNally (Plaintiff)
J.E. Armfield (First Defendant)
D.H. Murr, SC (Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Hunt Musgrave & Peach (Plaintiff)
Gulley Helene Scerri (First Defendant)
Maurice Marshan (Second Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Contract - Held, the plaintiff failed in his claim to one-third of the proceeds of a winning Lotto ticket alleged by the plaintiff to have been purchased on behalf of an alleged three member syndicate of which the plaintiff was a member.

CASES CITED: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Van Rassel v Kroon (1952-1953) 87 CLR 298

DECISION: PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

SIMOS J

TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2000

(NO. 4542/96): JOSEPH MANASSA v JOHN CHESHER & ANOR.

JUDGMENT

The Proceedings
Statement of Claim

1   HIS HONOUR: By statement of claim filed 26 February 1998 Joseph Manassa, the plaintiff, claimed against John Chesher, the first defendant, and Tony Sahyoun, the second defendant, that in or about 1982 and 1983 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an express oral agreement arising from a conversation between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
2   The statement of claim alleged that the substance of the conversation "relevantly" was as described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 5 December 1996 which were in the following terms:-

“9. In or about 1982 to 1983 1 had a conversation to the following effect with Mr. Chesher at the Granny flat:-

He said: 'I am going to buy some Lotto tickets each week. Would you like to contribute half the costs and you could have half the winnings?’

I then said: 'Yes.’

To the best of my recollection, I gave to Mr. Chesher an amount of approximately $5.00 at that time.

10. After, that conversation Mr. Chesher would periodically say words to the following effect to me:-

'We have won $20.00 (or $40.00 or $12.00 as the case may be). I will roll it over.’
I would say in response words to the effect of:-
'Yes, that's okay.’”

3   The agreement alleged to have arisen as the result of this conversation between the plaintiff and the first defendant was alleged in the statement of claim to have contained the following terms:-

"The first defendant was to purchase certain Lotto tickets on a weekly basis on behalf of the first defendant and the plaintiff; the plaintiff was to contribute to one half of the costs of purchasing the Lotto tickets; in the event that winnings were received in respect of the Lotto tickets purchased pursuant to the agreement then those winnings were to be equally distributed between the first defendant and the plaintiff; and minor winnings were to be used by the first…

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 Joseph Manassa v John Chesher

Details

AGLC: Joseph Manassa v John Chesher [2000] NSWSC 252
Case: [2000] NSWSC 252
Decision Date: 11 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Manassa brought an action against John Chesher, asserting that Chesher owed him one-third of the proceeds from a winning Lotto ticket. Manassa claimed the ticket was purchased on behalf of a syndicate consisting of himself, Chesher, and a third individual. Chesher denied the existence of any syndicate and the existence of any agreement to share the winnings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around the existence of a contract between the parties and whether Manassa had standing to claim a share of the winnings based on the alleged syndicate agreement.

The court examined the evidence and found that Manassa had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a syndicate or an agreement to share the winnings. The court held that the onus of proof was on Manassa to establish the existence of a binding agreement, which he had not done. The court emphasised that the mere assertion of an agreement was insufficient without concrete evidence to support such a claim. Furthermore, the court found that Manassa had not demonstrated any enforceable rights to the winnings based on the alleged syndicate arrangement.

Consequently, the court dismissed Manassa's claim, ruling that he was not entitled to any share of the Lotto winnings. The court found that there was no valid contract or agreement between the parties that would obligate Chesher to share the proceeds with Manassa. The judgement was final, and no appeal was allowed. The court ordered Manassa to pay Chesher's costs of the action.

Orders