Natuna Pty Ltd v Cook

Natuna Pty Ltd sought to enforce certain agreements with Cook, who had previously been a joint venturer in a proposed subdivision development. The joint venture was abandoned when Cook sold its land. Natuna sought to enforce agreements as to the sharing of joint costs, compensation for land contributions, and an access road, as well as an estoppel preventing Cook from denying his obligation to contribute to joint costs and an estoppel preventing Natuna from denying its obligation to compensate Cook for land. Natuna also sought damages for misleading and deceptive conduct and restitution for unjust enrichment. Cook argued that the agreements were not binding and that the caveat lodged by Natuna was not made on reasonable grounds. The court considered whether the agreements were intended to be binding, whether promissory estoppel applied, whether the conduct was misleading and deceptive, and whether there was unjust enrichment. The court found that the agreements were intended to be binding, that promissory estoppel applied, that the conduct was not misleading and deceptive, and that there was no unjust enrichment. The caveat was found to be lodged on reasonable grounds. The court ordered Cook to contribute to the costs and interest incurred by Natuna and to provide compensation for the land. Natuna was ordered to compensate Cook for the land.