Nock v Maddern

[2018] NSWCA 239

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Nock v Maddern [2018] NSWCA 239
Hearing dates:	22 March 2018
Decision date:	25 October 2018
Before:	Leeming JA at [1]; White JA at [2]; Sackville AJA at [57]
Decision:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	CONTRACT – Agistment for cattle – Where rate of agistment was agreed in 1986 – Where new rate was proposed in 2010 by email – Where response to proposal did not clearly accept new rate – Where cattle remained on property – Whether subsequent email correspondence admitted a quantum of debt owing at the new rate – Whether subsequent email correspondence revived debts that were otherwise statute-barred – ESTOPPEL – Whether email gave rise to promissory estoppel – Whether any clear and unequivocal representation arose – Where primary judge held that there was no reliance or detriment – Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 44(1)(a)) Law Reform (Law and Equity) Act 1972 (NSW) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 14, 54
Cases Cited:	Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 Gerace v Auzhair Supplies Pty Ltd (in liq) (2014) 87 NSWLR 435; [2014] NSWCA 181 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406 Saleh v Romanous (2010) 79 NSWLR 453; [2010] NSWCA 274 Walker v Wilsher (1889) 23 QBD 335
Texts Cited:	Bullen & Leake, Precedents of Pleadings, 3rd ed (1868)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lawrence Nock (Appellant) Robert Maddern (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: T Crispin (Appellant) I R Coleman SC (Respondent)   Solicitors: Concorde Legal (Appellant) Creagh and Creagh (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/290523
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: [2017] NSWDC 216 Date of Decision: 28 July 2017 Before: Mahony DCJ File Number(s): 2014/101954

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant, Mr Nock was the owner of rural land. In 1986, he and his sister entered into an agistment arrangement with the respondent, Dr Maddern. From 1999, the arrangement was between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent would pay $2.50 per head per week for yearlings and older cattle and $1.50 per head per week for calves older than six months. Payment ceased in 2004.

On 11 January 2010, the appellant emailed the respondent proposing a new agistment rate and debt recovery arrangement to commence on 31 March 2010. On 24 January 2010, the respondent replied stating, inter alia, “I do wish to go on using the property”. He continued to agist cattle on the property and with the exception of two minor payments did not resume payment on either the 1986 or 2010 terms. Over the next four years, the appellant corresponded with the respondent with emails of an increasingly formal and litigious nature.

On 19 December 2013, the appellant sent the respondent an email with an attached spreadsheet attempting to calculate the debt said to be owing.…