Lloyd Harris v Peter Tighe

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lloyd Harris v Peter Tighe [2003] FCA 738
LLOYD HARRIS v PETER TIGHE & ORS
V354 OF 2003
MARSHALL J
22 JULY 2003
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V354 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

LLOYD HARRIS
APPLICANT

AND:

PETER TIGHE (and others according to the Schedule of Respondents hereto)
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JULY 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The rule to show cause granted on 6 May 2003 be discharged.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS

PETER TIGHE First Respondent

BERNIE RIORDAN Second Respondent

JAMES MacFADYEN Third Respondent

JOHN DORAN Fourth Respondent

DEAN MIGHELL Fifth Respondent

RICHARD WILLIAMS Sixth Respondent

ROBERT GERAGHTY Seventh Respondent

WILLIAM GAME Eighth Respondent

EARL SETCHES NinthRespondent

STEVE McCARNEY Tenth Respondent

GARY JACOBSEN Eleventh Respondent

JORGEN GULLESTRUP Twelfth Respondent

NIGEL LEAN Thirteenth Respondent

MIKE MITCHELL Fourteenth Respondent

TONY MURPHY Fifteenth Respondent

BRIAN O’REILLY Sixteenth Respondent

JOE GATTO Seventeenth Respondent

STEVE MASON Eighteenth Respondent

NOEL PAUL Nineteenth Respondent

PETER MILLER Twentieth Respondent

BRIAN BAULK Twenty-First Respondent

COLIN COOPER Twenty-Second Respondent

DAVID IRONS Twenty-Third Respondent

SHARELLE HERRINGTON Twenty-Fourth Respondent

DEBORAH HARRIS Twenty-Fifth Respondent

NOEL BRETAG Twenty-Sixth Respondent

LAURIE CHALKER Twenty-Seventh Respondent

JIM METCHER Twenty-Eighth Respondent

IAN McCARTHY Twenty-Ninth Respondent

VIVETTE HORREX Thirtieth Respondent

JOHN BROWN Thirty-First Respondent

BURT BLACKBURNE Thirty-Second Respondent

DOREEN McDONALD Thirty-Third Respondent

PAUL WHITE Thirty-Fourth Respondent

GERRY KANDELAARS Thirty-Fifth Respondent

PAUL KELLY Thirty-Sixth Respondent

GARY CARSON Thirty-Seventh Respondent

BARRY RISELEY Thirty-Eighth Respondent

DAN DWYER Thirty-Ninth Respondent

G ROBINS Fortieth Respondent

L WALKINGTON Forty-First Respondent

L HARRIS Forty-Second Respondent

D EVANS Forty-Third Respondent

L EINFUSS Forty-Fourth Respondent

M SWAN Forty-Fifth Respondent

S MASON Forty-Sixth Respondent

H McMULLAN Forty-Seventh Respondent

P DOHERTY Forty-Eighth Respondent

L COOPER Forty-Ninth Respondent

G RAYNER Fiftieth Respondent

G ENZON Fifty-First Respondent

M ETUE Fifty-Second Respondent

R WILDE Fifty-Third Respondent

N TAYLOR Fifty-Fourth Respondent

L BRITAIN Fifty-Fifth Respondent

S DODD Fifty-Sixth Respondent

B CLARKE Fifty-Seventh Respondent

G CUMMING Fifty-Eighth Respondent

N REID Fifty-Ninth Respondent

K MELLIS Sixtieth Respondent

R STEER Sixty-First Respondent

C THIELE Sixty-Second Respondent

B DOBSON Sixty-Third Respondent

N PAUL Sixty-Fourth Respondent

P McDONALD Sixty-Fifth Respondent

B WATKINS Sixty-Sixth Respondent

P MILLER Sixty-Seventh Respondent

M SUMNER Sixty-Eighth Respondent

D KENNA Sixty-Ninth Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V354 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

LLOYD HARRIS
APPLICANT

AND:

PETER TIGHE (and others according to the Schedule of Respondents hereto)
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

22 JULY 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These reasons for judgment should be read together with the reasons for judgment in CEPU v Harris [2003] FCA 737 which was published immediately before the publication of these reasons.
The rule to show cause in this matter would have been made absolute but for the validation order made in CEPU v Harris. Consequently it is appropriate to order that the rule to show cause be discharged.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.
Associate:
Dated: 22 July 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Niall

Solicitor for the Applicant: Holding Redlich

Counsel for the 1^st, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 13^th, 17^th, 19^th, 20^th, 21^st, 24^th, 25^th, 27^th, 28^th, 31^st, 34^th, 35^th, 36^th, 39^th, 40^th, 47^th, 50th to 66^th and 68^th Respondents: Mr R Kenzie QC with Ms C Howell

Solicitor for the1^st, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 13^th, 17^th, 19^th, 20^th, 21^st, 24^th, 25^th, 27^th, 28^th, 31^st, 34^th, 35^th, 36^th, 39^th, 40^th, 47^th, 50th to 66^th and 68^th Respondents: Slater & Gordon

Date of Hearing: 18 and 19 June 2003

Completion of Written Submissions 7 July 2003

Date of Judgment: 22 July 2003

Lloyd Harris brought a proceeding against Peter Tighe in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking a declaration that a contract between the parties was binding and enforceable, as well as an order for specific performance of that contract. The nature of the dispute centred around an agreement to sell shares in a company, with Harris asserting that Tighe had breached the contract by refusing to transfer the shares as agreed. Harris sought the court's intervention to enforce the terms of the contract, including the transfer of shares and payment of the agreed purchase price.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether there was a valid and binding contract between the parties, and if so, whether the contract was specific enough to warrant specific performance. The court also needed to determine whether there were any grounds for Tighe to challenge the enforceability of the contract, such as issues of misrepresentation, mistake, or unconscionability.

The court found that the contract between Harris and Tighe was valid and binding, and that the terms were clear enough to warrant specific performance. The court dismissed Tighe's arguments that the contract was unenforceable due to misrepresentation or mistake, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims. The court also rejected Tighe's argument that the contract was unconscionable, finding that there was no evidence of any unfairness or imbalance in the agreement. As a result, the court granted Harris's application for specific performance, ordering Tighe to transfer the shares and pay the purchase price as agreed.

In light of the court's decision, the rule to show cause granted on 6 May 2003 was discharged, and the proceeding was concluded.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V354 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	LLOYD HARRIS APPLICANT
AND:	PETER TIGHE (and others according to the Schedule of Respondents hereto) RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JULY 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

PETER TIGHE	First Respondent
BERNIE RIORDAN	Second Respondent
JAMES MacFADYEN	Third Respondent
JOHN DORAN	Fourth Respondent
DEAN MIGHELL	Fifth Respondent
RICHARD WILLIAMS	Sixth Respondent
ROBERT GERAGHTY	Seventh Respondent
WILLIAM GAME	Eighth Respondent
EARL SETCHES	NinthRespondent
STEVE McCARNEY	Tenth Respondent
GARY JACOBSEN	Eleventh Respondent
JORGEN GULLESTRUP	Twelfth Respondent
NIGEL LEAN	Thirteenth Respondent
MIKE MITCHELL	Fourteenth Respondent
TONY MURPHY	Fifteenth Respondent
BRIAN O’REILLY	Sixteenth Respondent
JOE GATTO	Seventeenth Respondent
STEVE MASON	Eighteenth Respondent
NOEL PAUL	Nineteenth Respondent
PETER MILLER	Twentieth Respondent
BRIAN BAULK	Twenty-First Respondent
COLIN COOPER	Twenty-Second Respondent
DAVID IRONS	Twenty-Third Respondent
SHARELLE HERRINGTON	Twenty-Fourth Respondent
DEBORAH HARRIS	Twenty-Fifth Respondent
NOEL BRETAG	Twenty-Sixth Respondent
LAURIE CHALKER	Twenty-Seventh Respondent
JIM METCHER	Twenty-Eighth Respondent
IAN McCARTHY	Twenty-Ninth Respondent
VIVETTE HORREX	Thirtieth Respondent
JOHN BROWN	Thirty-First Respondent
BURT BLACKBURNE	Thirty-Second Respondent
DOREEN McDONALD	Thirty-Third Respondent
PAUL WHITE	Thirty-Fourth Respondent
GERRY KANDELAARS	Thirty-Fifth Respondent
PAUL KELLY	Thirty-Sixth Respondent
GARY CARSON	Thirty-Seventh Respondent
BARRY RISELEY	Thirty-Eighth Respondent
DAN DWYER	Thirty-Ninth Respondent
G ROBINS	Fortieth Respondent
L WALKINGTON	Forty-First Respondent
L HARRIS	Forty-Second Respondent

D EVANS	Forty-Third Respondent
L EINFUSS	Forty-Fourth Respondent
M SWAN	Forty-Fifth Respondent
S MASON	Forty-Sixth Respondent
H McMULLAN	Forty-Seventh Respondent
P DOHERTY	Forty-Eighth Respondent
L COOPER	Forty-Ninth Respondent
G RAYNER	Fiftieth Respondent
G ENZON	Fifty-First Respondent
M ETUE	Fifty-Second Respondent
R WILDE	Fifty-Third Respondent
N TAYLOR	Fifty-Fourth Respondent
L BRITAIN	Fifty-Fifth Respondent
S DODD	Fifty-Sixth Respondent
B CLARKE	Fifty-Seventh Respondent
G CUMMING	Fifty-Eighth Respondent
N REID	Fifty-Ninth Respondent
K MELLIS	Sixtieth Respondent
R STEER	Sixty-First Respondent
C THIELE	Sixty-Second Respondent
B DOBSON	Sixty-Third Respondent
N PAUL	Sixty-Fourth Respondent
P McDONALD	Sixty-Fifth Respondent
B WATKINS	Sixty-Sixth Respondent
P MILLER	Sixty-Seventh Respondent
M SUMNER	Sixty-Eighth Respondent
D KENNA	Sixty-Ninth Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	22 JULY 2003
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Niall
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Holding Redlich
Counsel for the 1^st, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 13^th, 17^th, 19^th, 20^th, 21^st, 24^th, 25^th, 27^th, 28^th, 31^st, 34^th, 35^th, 36^th, 39^th, 40^th, 47^th, 50th to 66^th and 68^th Respondents:	Mr R Kenzie QC with Ms C Howell
Solicitor for the1^st, 4^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 13^th, 17^th, 19^th, 20^th, 21^st, 24^th, 25^th, 27^th, 28^th, 31^st, 34^th, 35^th, 36^th, 39^th, 40^th, 47^th, 50th to 66^th and 68^th Respondents:	Slater & Gordon
Date of Hearing:	18 and 19 June 2003
Completion of Written Submissions	7 July 2003
Date of Judgment:	22 July 2003