Lawrence v Gunner; Gunner v Lawrence

In Lawrence v Gunner, the plaintiffs, Lawrence and his son, sought to enforce an oral agreement with the defendant, Gunner, who was the widow of the late husband of the first plaintiff, Lawrence. The plaintiffs alleged that an oral partnership or joint venture existed between Lawrence and the late husband to develop certain properties owned by the late husband. The dispute centred on whether such an arrangement survived the death of the late husband and whether Gunner was bound by the agreement or otherwise to continue the arrangements allegedly agreed to by her late husband. The plaintiffs also sought recovery under a quantum meruit. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought an order for possession of a property that was the subject of an alleged oral residential tenancy agreement, claiming that Gunner was in breach of the agreement. Gunner cross-claimed for damages for breach of fiduciary duty and an account of profits by the plaintiffs.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether an oral partnership or joint venture existed between the parties, whether such an agreement survived the death of the late husband, and whether Gunner was bound by the agreement or otherwise obliged to continue the arrangements. The court also had to decide whether Gunner was entitled to possession of the property under the alleged oral residential tenancy agreement and whether it had the jurisdiction to make an order terminating the tenancy or an order for possession. Finally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiffs had breached any fiduciary duty owed to Gunner and, if so, whether they were obliged to account for any profits made.

The court found that there was no evidence of an oral partnership or joint venture between the parties, and thus no such arrangement existed. The court also determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery under a quantum meruit. Regarding the residential tenancy agreement, the court held that it had jurisdiction to make an order for possession if Gunner was in breach of the agreement. The court found that Gunner was not in breach and thus no order for possession was made. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs had not breached any fiduciary duty owed to Gunner, and thus no obligation to account for profits arose.

The court made no order for possession and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also dismissed Gunner’s cross-claim for damages for breach of fiduciary duty and an account of profits. The court found that Gunner was entitled to possession of the property under the terms of the alleged oral residential tenancy agreement, as there was no evidence of a breach by Gunner.