Legal Research
Cases
Refaat v Barry

Refaat v Barry

Case [2015] VSCA 218 20 August 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0066

SAMEH REFAAT	Appellant
v
MICHAEL BARRY	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, ASHLEY and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 August 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 218
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM:	Refaat v Barry [2014] VCC 199 (Judge Macnamara) Refaat v Barry [2014] VCC 761 (Judge Macnamara) Refaat v Barry [2014] VCC 622 (Judge Macnamara)

---

CONTRACT — Sale agreement — Claim for balance of purchase price — Termination for breach of implied conditions — Where seller not party to proceedings — No basis for ordering relief.

CONTRACT — Partnership agreement — Alleged implied agreement to repay partnership contributions — No basis for ordering relief.

CONTRACT — Partnership agreement — Claim for partnership expenses — Whether recovery barred by subsequent conduct or delay — Award of interest — Supreme Court Act 1986 s 58.

CONTRACT — Loan agreement — Identity of parties differed between agreements —Estoppel argument not advanced at trial — No error.

CONTRACT — Loan agreement — Terms — Interest — Relevance of parties’ subjective intentions — Substantive appeal dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY — Alleged verbal agreement at outset of partnership agreement — Insufficient evidence of agreement to restraints sought — Equitable obligation of confidence.

COSTS — Offer of compromise — Calderbank offer — Award of indemnity costs against plaintiff — Where defendant’s counterclaim amended substantially during trial — Where joinder of proper plaintiff impeded — Leave to appeal granted — Appeal allowed — New costs order made.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Re-opening of issue after judgment — Fresh evidence on appeal — No error in exercise of discretion to re-open issue and admit evidence — Procedural fairness accorded.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Dr S Refaat (in person)	---
For the Respondent	Mr J Wilkinson	DMAC Legal

WARREN CJ
ASHLEY JA
TATE JA:

Introduction

This appeal concerns a contractual dispute between Dr Sameh Refaat, a mechanical engineer, and Mr Michael Barry, the principal of printing and signwriting company Alive Graphics Pty Ltd (‘Alive Graphics’). The dispute relates to a Computer Numerical Control machine (‘the machine’), which was built by Dr Refaat for the purpose of cutting stone.

Initially, Dr Refaat and Mr Barry’s intention was that they would purchase the machine in partnership and house it at Alive Graphics’ premises. Following various delays and unforeseen cost increases during the construction of the machine, Mr Barry later sought to simplify matters by buying the machine in his own right. After further difficulties were encountered, Mr Barry sought to withdraw from the plan altogether and to abandon his purchase of the machine.

In the County Court, Dr Refaat unsuccessfully sought to enforce Mr Barry’s agreement to buy the machine and to restrain Mr Barry from using knowledge he had acquired in the course of the two men’s dealings. Mr Barry’s counterclaim, which was successful in part, alleged breaches of contract and of fiduciary duties, and sought the repayment of personal…

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 Refaat v Barry

Details

AGLC: Refaat v Barry [2015] VSCA 218
Case: [2015] VSCA 218
Decision Date: 20 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Refaat v Barry involved a complex web of contractual disputes between the parties. Refaat, the plaintiff, sought various forms of relief from Barry, the defendant, arising from a series of agreements, including a sale agreement, a partnership agreement, and a loan agreement. Refaat claimed the balance of the purchase price from the sale agreement, repayment of partnership contributions under the partnership agreement, and reimbursement of partnership expenses. Additionally, Refaat sought interest under the Supreme Court Act 1986 and argued for an estoppel in relation to the loan agreement. The court also considered an offer of compromise made by Refaat and an alleged verbal agreement at the outset of the partnership. The central legal issues centred on whether Refaat was entitled to the relief sought given the circumstances of the agreements and the conduct of the parties.

The court found that Refaat’s claims for relief were largely unfounded. Regarding the sale agreement, the court held that there was no basis for ordering the balance of the purchase price due to the absence of the seller in the proceedings. For the partnership agreement, the court ruled that there was no implied agreement to repay partnership contributions and that any claim for partnership expenses was barred by the plaintiff's conduct or undue delay. The court also dismissed the substantive appeal concerning the terms of the loan agreement, noting that the identity of the parties differed between the agreements and that an estoppel argument was not advanced at trial. As for the alleged verbal agreement at the outset of the partnership, the court found insufficient evidence to support the existence of such an agreement or the restraints sought.

The court's reasoning led to the dismissal of Refaat's claims, except for an award of interest under the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of costs, finding that the award of indemnity costs against Refaat was inappropriate given the substantial amendments to the defendant's counterclaim during trial and the impediment to joinder of a proper plaintiff. The appeal was allowed, and a new costs order was made. Additionally, the court found no error in the exercise of discretion to re-open an issue and admit fresh evidence on appeal, ensuring procedural fairness was accorded.

The final orders included dismissing Refaat's claims for the balance of the purchase price, repayment of partnership contributions, and reimbursement of partnership expenses. The court also dismissed the substantive appeal concerning the terms of the loan agreement and the alleged verbal agreement. However, it allowed the appeal on costs and made a new costs order. Refaat was awarded interest under the Supreme Court Act 1986, but no other relief was granted.

Orders