RCR TOMLINSON LTD -v- RUSSELL [2015] WASCA 154
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 154 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:110/2013 | 9 MARCH 2015 | |
| Coram: | BUSS JA MURPHY JA BEECH J | 7/08/15 | |
| 33 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal upheld | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : RCR TOMLINSON LTD -v- RUSSELL [2015] WASCA 154 CORAM : BUSS JA
- MURPHY JA
BEECH J
- Appellant
AND
DAVID WILLIAM RUSSELL
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : PRITCHARD J
Citation : RUSSELL -v- RCR TOMLINSON LTD [2012] WASC 405
File No : CIV 1229 of 2010
Catchwords:
Equity - Rectification - Whether open to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read RCR Tomlinson Ltd V Russell 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2015] WASCA 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of RCR Tomlinson Ltd V Russell was heard in the Australian court, where RCR Tomlinson Ltd sought to rectify a contract. The nature of the dispute involved a disagreement over the terms of a contract and whether the trial judge was correct in finding that a common intention was established through clear and convincing proof. The trial judge had ruled in favour of RCR Tomlinson Ltd, and Russell appealed the decision.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge was correct in finding that a common intention was established through clear and convincing proof, and whether the trial judge was correct in granting rectification of the contract. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the trial judge had not applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision, and that the evidence did not support a finding that a common intention was established through clear and convincing proof. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in granting rectification of the contract. As a result, the appeal was upheld and the decision of the trial judge was overturned.
In light of the court's decision, the final orders were that the appeal was upheld and the decision of the trial judge was overturned. The contract remained as originally written, and no rectification was granted. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge was correct in finding that a common intention was established through clear and convincing proof, and whether the trial judge was correct in granting rectification of the contract. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the trial judge had not applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision, and that the evidence did not support a finding that a common intention was established through clear and convincing proof. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in granting rectification of the contract. As a result, the appeal was upheld and the decision of the trial judge was overturned.
In light of the court's decision, the final orders were that the appeal was upheld and the decision of the trial judge was overturned. The contract remained as originally written, and no rectification was granted. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.