Legal Research
Cases
Lucke v Cleary

Lucke v Cleary

Case [2011] SADC 41 31 March 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
LUCKE v CLEARY & ORS
[2011] SADC 41
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Davey
31 March 2011
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS - AGREEMENTS CONTEMPLATING EXECUTION OF FORMAL DOCUMENT - WHETHER CONCLUDED CONTRACT
The parties in this matter informed the Court that they had "settled the matter". Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that there was a dispute as to the alleged settlement. The defendants allege that an enforceable agreement exists. The parties agreed that there should be a trial as to whether there was an enforceable agreement as to settlement.
Held: There was an enforceable agreement, a concluded contract, after publication of the Deed of Settlement by the plaintiff's solicitors on 1 November 2010.
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; Allen v Carbone (1975) 132 CLR 528; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Limited (1988) 18 NSWLR 540; Summit Properties Pty Ltd v Comserv (No 784) Pty Ltd (1981) 2 BPR 9173; Ewing International LP v Ausbulk Ltd (No 2) [2009] SASC 381; Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis [2010] NSWSC 318; RT & YE Falls Investments v The State of New South Wales & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1027; Pianta v National Finance & Trustees Ltd (1964) 38 ALJR 232; Lazaridis v Humphris-Clark [2010] NSWCA 349, considered.

LUCKE v CLEARY & ORS
[2011] SADC 41
Introduction

This is a trial of whether there is an enforceable agreement, a binding contract, arising from an alleged settlement between the plaintiff and the four defendants to the original proceedings. Those proceedings were in relation to a dispute about real property. On 18 October 2010 the parties informed the court that they had “settled the matter”.[1] On 15 December 2010 the parties informed the court that there was a dispute as to the alleged settlement but that they had agreed that there should be a trial as to whether there was an enforceable agreement as to settlement.[2]
[1] Transcript 18 October 2010 at 3
[2] Transcript 15 December 2010 at 2-7
The matter was listed for the trial of the original proceedings before His Honour Judge Soulio and, after being informed that there was a dispute as to settlement, he dealt with the issue of the allegation of an enforceable agreement arising from the settlement. It was agreed that this could be separately tried. A number of orders were made as to the manner in which that issue should be determined. This was done with the consent of all parties. The defendants jointly filed a Statement of Claim on this issue which is described as “On the Contract Issue”. The plaintiff filed a Defence. All parties agreed that no oral evidence was required. The defendants agreed to be dux litis on this trial.
A joint statement of Agreed Facts and Responses thereto were filed together with a number of documents in a book of documents which was tendered and marked D1. The first 66…

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 Lucke v Cleary

Details

AGLC: Lucke v Cleary [2011] SADC 41
Case: [2011] SADC 41
Decision Date: 31 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lucke v Cleary concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Lucke, and the defendant, Mr Cleary, over whether a binding contract was formed between the parties. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether an agreement between the parties, which was intended to be formalised by a written document, constituted a binding contract in the absence of the formal document.

The court was required to determine if the preliminary agreement, which included key terms but lacked a formal execution, could be considered a binding contract. It needed to examine whether the preliminary agreement contained all essential terms and if there was an intention to be legally bound by the terms of the agreement. Additionally, the court had to consider if the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and communications between the parties evidenced a binding contract.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while the parties had reached an agreement on essential terms and had an intention to be legally bound, the absence of a formal written document meant that the agreement did not constitute a binding contract. The court held that the preliminary agreement was not sufficiently comprehensive to be enforceable as a contract and that the parties had contemplated the execution of a formal document. As such, the agreement did not meet the requirements for a concluded contract. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that no binding contract existed between the parties.

Orders