Legal Research
Cases
Rae & Partners Pty v Shaw

Rae & Partners Pty v Shaw

Case [2020] TASFC 14 22 December 2020

Type to search within this case.

[2020] TASFC 14

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Rae & Partners Pty v Shaw [2020] TASFC 14
PARTIES:	RAE & PARTNERS PTY (ACN 109 423 645)
HART, Ross
v
SHAW, Lee Anthony
HANLON, Beverley Joyce
PAGE, Phillip R; GREY, Darrell
trading as ZEEMAN KABLE & PAGE (a firm)
FILE NO:	565/2020
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	Shaw v Hanlon [2020] TASSC 2
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions: 15, 27 May, 12 June 2020
Supplementary submissions: 19, 27 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Geason J and Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Estoppel – Estoppel by Deed or Convention – Estoppel by convention – Generally – Whether mutual assumption confined to a matter of fact or can be one of law – Whether assumption of law restricted to one relating to private legal rights.

Con-Stan Industries Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226; David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (1992) 175 CLR 353; Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited (2009) 239 CLR 269; TEC Desert Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (WA) (2010) 241 CLR 576; Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Thomas (2018) 92 ALJR 746; Fischer v Nemeske Pty Ltd (2016) 257 CLR 615, considered.
Aust Dig Estoppel [1040]
Estoppel – Estoppel by Deed or Convention – Estoppel by convention – Particular cases – Claim for damages

conducted by a party's lawyer using proceedings in which the court had no jurisdiction to determine the claim – Time limitation period expired – Assertion of mutual assumption of parties that claim properly being pursued in the existing proceedings – Finding that relevant assumption not adopted by each party because no real thought or due consideration given to the issue – Trial judge erred in that approach – Particular level of deliberation not a preliminary requirement for such a finding – No estoppel by convention in any event because evidence did not establish mutual adoption of assumption.

Aust Dig Estoppel [1041]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellants: P L Jackson SC
Third Respondents: S B McElwaine SC

Solicitors:

Appellants: Simmons Wolfhagen
Third Respondents: Shaun McElwaine + Associates

Judgment Number:	[2020] TASFC 14
Number of paragraphs:	160

Serial No 14/2020 File No 565/2020

RAE & PARTNERS PTY (ACN 109 423 645), ROSS HART

v LEE ANTHONY SHAW, BEVERLEY JOYCE HANLON, PHILLIP R PAGE

and DARRELL GREY trading as ZEEMAN KABLE & PAGE (a firm)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT BLOW CJ GEASON J PORTER AJ 22 December 2020
Orders of the Court:
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 14/2020 File No 565/2020

RAE & PARTNERS PTY (ACN 109 423 645), ROSS HART

v LEE ANTHONY SHAW, BEVERLEY JOYCE HANLON, PHILLIP R PAGE

and DARRELL GREY trading as ZEEMAN KABLE & PAGE (a firm)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
BLOW CJ
22 December 2020

1 I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Porter AJ in draft form, for…

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 Rae & Partners Pty v Shaw

Details

AGLC: Rae and Partners Pty v Shaw [2020] TASFC 14
Case: [2020] TASFC 14
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rae & Partners Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a single judge. The dispute concerned whether the appellant was estopped from denying the validity of a deed it had executed, despite the deed containing a misstatement of law. The respondent, Mr. Shaw, sought to rely on the deed to enforce certain rights.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the doctrine of estoppel by convention could apply to a mutual assumption concerning a matter of law, rather than solely a matter of fact. Specifically, the court had to determine if such an assumption of law was restricted to assumptions relating to private legal rights, or if it extended to broader legal principles.

The Full Court held that estoppel by convention can arise from a mutual assumption of law, not just fact. The court reasoned that the purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a party from departing from an assumption that has been adopted by both parties and upon which they have acted to their detriment. The court found that the deed itself, by its terms, created a mutual assumption that the legal position was as stated within it, and that the appellant was therefore estopped from denying the validity of the deed based on the misstatement of law. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders