Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd - [2005] NSWSC 1040

CITATION:
Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1040
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 17/05/05, 18/05/05, 19/05/05, 20/05/05, 24/05/05, 25/05/05, 26/05/05, 27/05/05
Written submissions: 06/06/05, 16/06/05, 23/06/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

18 October 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Barrett J

DECISION:
Proceedings dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT - general contractual principles - claim by town planning consultants for remuneration - whether contract varied to remunerate plaintiffs by transfer of real property or payment of equivalent value - whether an implied term for hourly remuneration - RESTITUTION - restitution arising from ineffective contracts - whether the plaintiffs in breach of the contracts - performance of work in expectation of reward - entitlement to quantum meruit - ESTOPPEL - whether representations made - TRADE AND COMMERCE - misleading or deceptive conduct - representations by one party as to that party's future conduct - whether representations actionable under Trade Practices Act ss.51A and 52 and Fair Trading Act ss.41 and 42

LEGISLATION CITED:
Conveyancing Act 1919, s.54A(1)
Fair Trading Act 1987, ss.42, 68, 72
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.52, 82, 87

CASES CITED:
Arcadi v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1984) ATPR 40-473
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Company v Ansell (1888) 39 ChD 339
Cutter v Powell (1795) 6 Term Rep 320
Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E.G. Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) ATPR (Digest) 46-030
Elias v George Sahely & Co (Barbados) Ltd [1983] 1 AC 646
Fenech & Anor v Sterling (1983) ATPR 40-413
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 1
Harvey v Edwards Dunlop & Co Ltd (1927) 39 CLR 302
Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176
James & Ors v ANZ Banking Group Ltd & Ors (1986) ATPR 46-005
J Gadsden Pty Ltd v Strider 1 Ltd (The AES Express) (1990) 20 NSWLR 57
Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286
Munro v Butt (1858) 8 El & Bl 739; (1858) 120 ER 275
Nicholson v Burnett (1922) 25 WAR 101
Pappas v Soulac Pty Ltd (1983) ATPR 40-411
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Pirie v Saunders (1961) 104 CLR 149
PT Ltd and Another v Maradona Pty Ltd (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 241
Purcell v Bacon (1914) 19 CLR 241
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620
Steele v Tardiani [1946] 72 CLR 386
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673
Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177
The Progressive Mailing House Pty Limited v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17
Tonitto v Bassal (1992) 28…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 1040
Decision Date: 18 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd involved town planning consultants, the plaintiffs, who sought remuneration for their services. The defendants, Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd, were property developers. The dispute centred on the nature of the contract between the parties, the terms of remuneration, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to payment for their services. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to decide whether the contract between the parties had been varied such that the plaintiffs' remuneration would be in the form of a transfer of real property or payment of an equivalent value. Another issue was whether there was an implied term for hourly remuneration, which would entitle the plaintiffs to payment on a quantum meruit basis. The court also needed to determine if the plaintiffs were in breach of the contracts and whether they were entitled to restitution under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiffs could rely on estoppel and whether there had been misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendants.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the terms of the contracts, the nature of the work performed, and the circumstances in which the work was carried out. The court held that there was no variation to the contract entitling the plaintiffs to a transfer of property or equivalent monetary value. It was also found that there was no implied term for hourly remuneration. The court further found that the plaintiffs were not in breach of the contracts. However, it determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution on a quantum meruit basis due to their performance of work in the expectation of reward. The court held that the plaintiffs could not rely on estoppel or claim misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs the value of the work performed on a quantum meruit basis. The court did not find it necessary to award any additional damages or penalties under the Trade Practices Act or Fair Trading Act.

Orders