P J Leahy v A R Hill - [2018] NSWSC 6

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: P J Leahy & Ors v A R Hill & Anor [2018] NSWSC 6
Hearing dates: 8 January 2018
Decision date: 08 January 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Black J
Decision:
The Notice of Motion dated 20 December 2017 be dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: CONTRACTS — Formation — Agreement — Intention to make concluded bargain – Application to stay New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal proceedings – where offer to settle proceedings accepted in principle and subject to agreement on a form of deed – whether settlement binding.
Legislation Cited: - Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990 (NSW)
- Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Cases Cited: - Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
- Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v GR Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622
- Boyd v Feeney [2017] NSWSC 1595
- BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Van Beers Motors Ltd (unreported, 10 March 1992)
- Cacace v Bayside Operations Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 572
- Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353
- Oracle New Zealand Ltd v Price Waterhouse Administration Ltd [2010] 1 NZLR 553
- Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 313; (2015) 90 NSWLR 605
- Sayed v National Australia Bank Ltd [2013] NSWCA 304
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Peter James Leahy (First Plaintiff)
Robin Leahy (Second Plaintiff)
GJ Leahy & Sons Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
Anthony Roland Hill (First Defendant)
Diana Lea Hill (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
E White (Plaintiffs)
M R Tyson/N Laing (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Coleman Greig Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
JMA Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/386037

Judgment – ex tempore (revised 9 january 2018)

By Statement of Claim filed on 21 December 2017, the Plaintiffs (“Leahy parties”) claim a declaration that an agreement to settle a dispute in proceedings in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("NCAT") is valid and enforceable and ought to be specifically performed and an order for specific performance of that agreement. By Notice of Motion filed on 21 December 2017, the Leahy parties sought an order that the NCAT proceedings be stayed pending determination of these proceedings or such other order of the Court. The Leahy parties were insistent upon the fact that the matter was listed today for determination of that motion only, and not for determination of the ultimate claims made in their Statement of Claim.
The parties gave little attention, in the course of submissions, to the basis of the Court's jurisdiction to stay the NCAT proceedings. I will proceed on the basis that it is at least necessary for the Leahy parties to establish that there is a serious question to be tried that there is a valid and enforceable settlement agreement between the parties in the NCAT proceedings and that the balance of convenience warrants the stay. It seems to me that those propositions must, at least, be uncontroversial, since…

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 P J Leahy v A R Hill 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: [2018] NSWSC 6
Decision Date: 08 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of P J Leahy v A R Hill involves a dispute over the binding nature of a settlement offer made in the context of civil litigation. The applicant, P J Leahy, sought to enforce a settlement agreement against the respondent, A R Hill, in proceedings before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an initial application by Leahy to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court, pending resolution of the settlement agreement's enforceability.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the settlement offer, accepted in principle by Leahy but subject to agreement on the form of a deed, constituted a binding contract. The court needed to determine if the terms of the settlement were sufficiently certain and if there was a mutual intention to be legally bound by the terms of the agreement. This required an analysis of the communications between the parties and the context in which the acceptance and conditions of the settlement were articulated.

In determining the enforceability of the settlement agreement, the court found that while Leahy had accepted the settlement offer in principle, the acceptance was expressly made subject to agreement on the form of a deed. The court concluded that this condition was a significant term that had not been satisfied, and thus, the agreement was not binding. The court held that the settlement offer, as it stood, did not demonstrate a mutual intention to be legally bound, and therefore, the application to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Leahy's application to enforce the settlement agreement was dismissed, and costs of the application were awarded to Hill. The court also made a declaration that the settlement offer, as it stood, was not binding, and the stay of the NCAT proceedings was lifted, allowing those proceedings to continue.

Orders