Legal Research
Cases
LCY Pty Ltd v Ma

LCY Pty Ltd v Ma

Case [2017] VSCA 383 20 December 2017

Contract Formation

Estoppel by Convention

Detriment

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2017 0049

LCY PTY LTD (ACN 157 713 178)	Applicant
v
DONG YAN MA	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TATE, OSBORN and ASHLEY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 November 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 December 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 383
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VCC 264 (Judge Cosgrave)

---

CONTRACT – Management agreement – Claim for unpaid management fees – Estoppel by convention – Common assumption between the parties – Detriment – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wilmoth Field Warne (2007) 18 VR 250, referred to – Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507, Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641, applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J L Bourke QC with Mr D K Carlile	RTC Legal
For the Respondent	Mr A T Broadfoot QC with Mr G J Redenbach	Henley Legal

TATE JA
ASHLEY JA:

On 12 April 2017, a County Court judge entered judgment for the defendant in a claim brought by LCY Pty Ltd (‘LCY’ or ‘the plaintiff’) against Dong Yan Ma (‘Ma’ or ‘the defendant’). The claim, laid in contract by writ filed 7 December 2015, had been defended on the basis that the contract was void ab initio. The judge found that the contract was unenforceable. His Honour further rejected reliance by the plaintiff upon an alleged estoppel.

The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judge’s order and that its appeal be allowed. It does not challenge the judge’s conclusion that its claim founded in contract should fail. It does challenge the judge’s finding that the defendant was not estopped from denying that he owed the plaintiff unpaid ‘management fees’.

We will set out the proposed grounds of appeal later in these reasons. But to understand those grounds, it is first necessary to describe the circumstances of the matter, the pleadings, the conduct of the trial, and the judge’s reasons.

The circumstances generally described

LCY was the corporate vehicle for a Chinese businessman resident in Melbourne named Shuirong Yu (‘Yu’). LCY was trustee for Yu’s family trust. LCY was controlled by him.[1]
[1]LCY Pty Ltd v Dong Yan Ma [2017] VCC 264 [2] (‘Reasons’).

Ma, another Chinese businessman resident in Melbourne, also had a corporate vehicle — MYD Pty Ltd (‘MYD’). MYD was the trustee of a trust of which Ma was the beneficiary. Ma was the sole director of MYD.[2]
[2]A company extract of MYD was tendered at trial.

The judge said in his reasons that the case was ‘unusual in several respects’.[3] He stated that there was little evidence called, Yu giving short evidence, Ma giving none, and Ma tendering some documents. Second, said the judge, the parties agreed on some important facts notwithstanding the absence of evidence. In particular, they agreed…

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 LCY Pty Ltd v Ma

Details

AGLC: LCY Pty Ltd v Ma [2017] VSCA 383
Case: [2017] VSCA 383
Decision Date: 20 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LCY Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Ma, seeking recovery of unpaid management fees under a contractual management agreement. The dispute was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia. The core issue before the court was whether Ma was estopped from denying LCY Pty Ltd's claim for unpaid management fees due to a common assumption between the parties that the fees were paid, which led to LCY Pty Ltd incurring detriment. The court had to determine if the circumstances met the criteria for estoppel by convention.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented to assess whether there was a common assumption about the payment of management fees and whether LCY Pty Ltd suffered detriment as a result of this assumption. The court applied principles from established case law, including Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd, Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wilmoth Field Warne, Thompson v Palmer, and Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty Ltd. The court concluded that the common assumption existed and that LCY Pty Ltd had indeed suffered detriment, leading to the application of estoppel by convention. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and ruled in favour of LCY Pty Ltd, permitting the claim for unpaid management fees. The decision underscores the importance of the detriment element in establishing estoppel by convention.

Orders