Kyriacou v Makis

Kyriacou v Makis involved a dispute regarding the existence of a partnership between the parties and the scope of an agent's authority. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether the parties had entered into a partnership and, if so, the extent of their obligations to each other. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there was an agency relationship between the parties and the nature and scope of any such authority.

The court first examined whether a partnership existed between the parties. It found that there was no partnership as the joint activities were essentially transactional in nature and the co-ownership of investment property did not, by itself, establish a partnership. However, the court did find an estoppel by convention, estoppel by encouragement, and estoppel by acquiescence, which prevented one party from denying the existence of a partnership. The court also found that there was an agency relationship, and the agent's knowledge was imputed to the principal. The court determined that the agent, a solicitor, had actual authority to act for both parties in the transaction.

The court concluded that the parties had entered into an agreement that amounted to an estoppel by convention and estoppel by encouragement. This prevented one party from denying the existence of a partnership, despite the lack of a formal partnership agreement. The court found that the agent had actual authority to act for both parties, and the principal was bound by the agent's actions within the scope of that authority. The court did not make any orders in this particular judgment, but the reasons for the judgment were published. The court found that the publication of the reasons for the judgment did not amount to an abuse of process, given the circumstances of the case.