Left Bank Investments Pty Ltd v Ngunya Jarjum Aboriginal Corporation

In the case of Left Bank Investments Pty Ltd v Ngunya Jarjum Aboriginal Corporation, the dispute involved a lease agreement between the parties. The central issue was whether the acceptance of an offer by the lessee's solicitor, acting on instructions from the CEO, constituted a concluded agreement for a new lease. The case required the court to determine whether the CEO had the actual, implied, or ostensible authority to bind the lessee to a new lease agreement. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the lessor's reliance on the acceptance was reasonable, potentially giving rise to an estoppel claim.

The court examined whether the CEO, who was not a director of the lessee, had the authority to accept the offer for a new lease. The CEO's position did not ordinarily confer the authority to enter into lease agreements, and there was no evidence of the board delegating such authority to the CEO. Additionally, the court found that there was no actual or implied authority established, as the CEO's acceptance was not supported by the necessary delegation of authority. The statutory assumptions under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) did not assist the lessor in proving the existence of authority, and no ostensible authority was established because there was no holding out by the lessee that the CEO had the requisite authority.

The court concluded that the acceptance by the solicitor did not constitute a concluded agreement for a new lease, as no actual, implied, or ostensible authority was present. Additionally, the lessor's reliance on the acceptance was not reasonable, given the risk that the CEO might not have the authority to bind the lessee. Therefore, the estoppel claim was not successful. The court found in favour of the lessee, determining that no binding agreement for a new lease existed.

The court's final orders were that the lessor's claims against the lessee for a new lease agreement were dismissed. The court ruled that no concluded agreement had been reached between the parties, and no estoppel applied to prevent the lessee from denying the existence of such an agreement.