Lawrence Nock v Robert Maddern

[2017] NSWDC 216

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lawrence Nock v Robert Maddern [2017] NSWDC 216
Hearing dates:	20-22 June 2017
Date of orders:	18 August 2017
Decision date:	28 July 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see [103]
Catchwords:	Agreement for agistment of cattle; promissory estoppel by representation
Legislation Cited:	Limitation Act 1987 Local Land Services Act 2013 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited:	Carrier v Georges [2013] NSWSC 401 DHJPM Pty Limited v Blackthorne Resources [2011] NSWCA 348 Empirnall Holdings Pty Limited v Machon Paull Partners Pty Limited (1988) 14 NSWLR 523 Gerace v Auzhair Supplies Pty Limited (2014) 87 NSWLR 435; [2014] NSWCA 181 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406 Orr v Ford (1988) 167 CLR 316 Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 19 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lawrence Nock (Plaintiff) Robert Maddern (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: T Crispin (Plaintiff) I Coleman SC (Defendant)   Solicitors: Concorde Legal Creagh and Creagh
File Number(s):	14/101954
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

The plaintiff’s claim

1. By an Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”) filed on 14 April 2016, the plaintiff claims the sum of $367,296.00 plus interest and costs, alleged to be owing by the defendant by way of agistment fees for stock owned by the defendant which were agisted on the plaintiff’s property at Gunning.

2. The plaintiff’s claim is pleaded by way of damages for breach of contract, allegedly made between the parties on 24 January 2010. Alternatively, the plaintiff pleads that certain representations were made by the defendant on 24 January 2010, to the effect “that he agreed to the new terms”, that the plaintiff relied on those representations and suffered detriment.

3. It is further pleaded that by an email dated 20 February 2013, the defendant made representations to the plaintiff “acknowledging the debt and indicating he would resume payments”. The plaintiff pleaded that he relied upon those representations and suffered detriment. In those circumstances, the plaintiff claimed that it would be unconscionable for the defendant not to be held to the representations made, either on 24 January 2010, or 20 February 2013.

4. In an Amended Defence to the ASOC filed on 16 June 2016, the defendant pleaded that from 1986 he and the plaintiff (together with the plaintiff’s former partner), had an arrangement relating to the agistment of the defendant’s stock on the plaintiff’s property at Gunning. The arrangement involved the defendant carrying out certain work on the property and incurring expense in respect of the placing of chattels on that property. Between 2004 and 2010, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff made no requests for payment of agistment fees and at no time did he allege that any such fees were “in arrears”.

5. The defendant denied that he accepted by email dated 24 January…