Richards v Han

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Richards, a barrister and senior lecturer in law, brought claims against Mr Han, a director and shareholder of several companies under the White Horse Group, in relation to alleged contractual and statutory breaches. Mr Richards claimed he had an oral agreement with Mr Han that he would receive a 3% equity share in a company to be listed on a stock exchange, to operate an e-commerce and retail business. He also claimed that Mr Han's conduct was misleading or deceptive, and unconscionable, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law. Additionally, Mr Richards sought a quantum meruit claim for work performed for Mr Han and the White Horse Group companies. Mr Han denied all claims and counterclaimed for costs. The court had to determine the validity of the alleged oral contract, whether there was any breach or repudiation of the contract, and whether Mr Han engaged in misleading or unconscionable conduct. The court also needed to assess Mr Richards' quantum meruit claims.

The court found that the alleged oral contract between Mr Richards and Mr Han did not exist as claimed, and no evidence supported the existence of such a contract. The court concluded that Mr Han did not repudiate the contract or breach it, and therefore, the contract was either abandoned or discharged by agreement. The court further found that Mr Han's conduct did not contravene the Australian Consumer Law as there was no evidence that Mr Han had no intention of allocating a 3% share to Mr Richards. The court dismissed all claims brought by Mr Richards. Regarding the quantum meruit claims, the court found that Mr Richards was entitled to be paid for his work as a project manager of the Lindeman Island development but denied his claim for work performed in relation to the Stock Exchange Listing. The court ordered the parties to provide agreed draft orders or, in default, to file written submissions, draft orders, and affidavit evidence.

The court ordered that the parties provide agreed draft orders, including as to costs, to give effect to the reasons for judgment. In the absence of any request for an oral hearing, any dispute as to the orders to be made would be determined on the papers. The parties were to file and serve written submissions, draft orders, and any affidavit evidence in support of those orders on or before 4.00pm on Friday, 23 December 2022.