Owen v Owen - [2020] NSWSC 258

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Owen v Owen [2020] NSWSC 258
Hearing dates: 26 February 2020
Date of orders: 19 March 2020
Decision date: 19 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See paras 135 and 149. Proceedings dismissed. Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — Formation — Agreement — Intention to make concluded bargain— Where the whole of the evidence indicates that negotiations are not complete
CONTRACTS — Construction — Interpretation — Natural and ordinary meaning
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW)
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Regulation 2015
Cases Cited: Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Baller Industries Pty Ltd v Mero Mero Leasing Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1067
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471; [2004] HCA 55
His Eminence Metropolitan Petar, Dieses and Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand v The Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 142
Hussey v Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App Cas 311
Maskelyne v Stollery (1899) 16 TLR 97
Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Heydon on Contract (2019, Thomson Reuters)
J D Heydon, M J Leeming, and P G Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (5th edition, 2014, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Owen (plaintiff)
Amanda Amy Owen (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: Paul Owen (self-represented)
Amanda Amy Owen (self-represented)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2019 / 266184

Judgment

The issue in this case is whether, on or about 3 May 2019, the parties entered into a binding and enforceable agreement to resolve all matters in dispute between them.
The plaintiff, Mr Paul Owen, contends that the parties did agree to resolve all matters in dispute between himself and the defendant, and seeks a declaration and consequential relief to that effect. The defendant is Ms Amanda Amy Owen. Ms Owen was, until her recent divorce from Mr Owen's son, Matthew, Mr Owen's daughter-in-law.
At various times during the dispute, both parties have been represented by a solicitor. Ms Cherri Maree Lewis represented Mr Owen and a solicitor called Mr Murray Lake represented Ms Owen.
However, Mr Owen’s statement of claim appears to have been prepared by Matthew Owen, and Ms Owen prepared her defence herself.
At the hearing, which took place on 26 February 2020, Matthew Owen initially sought to conduct the proceedings on behalf of his father, and Ms Owen appeared by herself without representation. Early in the hearing, when the Court came to appreciate that Ms Owen and Matthew Owen had recently been divorced, Mr Owen was required to conduct his claim himself, which he then did.
The hearing was conducted on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits made by Mr Owen, Ms Lewis and Ms Owen, and the documents annexed to those affidavits. There was brief…

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 Owen v Owen

Details

AGLC: Owen v Owen [2020] NSWSC 258
Case: [2020] NSWSC 258
Decision Date: 19 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Owen v Owen involved a dispute between two parties regarding the formation of a contract. The plaintiff, Owen, alleged that the defendant, also Owen, had entered into an agreement for the sale of a property. The defendant, however, denied any such agreement existed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether an enforceable contract had been formed between the parties and, if so, what the terms of that contract were. The court needed to determine if the negotiations between the parties had reached a point where an intention to make a concluded bargain existed. Additionally, the court had to interpret the terms of the agreement, if any, based on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used.

The court found that the negotiations between the parties had not reached a stage where an intention to make a concluded bargain existed. The evidence showed that the parties were still in the process of negotiating the terms of the agreement, and no final and binding contract had been formed. Furthermore, the court held that the terms of the alleged agreement could not be determined with sufficient clarity to allow for enforcement. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was not required to proceed with the sale of the property as per the plaintiff's claim. The court's ruling clarified the legal principles surrounding the formation of contracts and the importance of clear and final agreements between parties.

Orders