Sorbello v Sorbello

Case [2005] QSC 219


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sorbello & Ors v Sorbello & Anor [2005] QSC 219

PARTIES:

GINA SHEZ MARIA SORBELLO
JAI DESMOND SORBELLO
ANDRE GIOVANI SORBELLO
(by his litigation guardian BERYL EMILY ANDERSON)
(plaintiffs)
v
JOHN SORBELLO
(first defendant)
CROWN IMPORTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
ACN 070 946 799

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS4483 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30-31 March and 1 April 2005

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

The proceeding is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE – MATTERS NOT GIVING RISE TO BINDING CONTRACT – AGREEMENTS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS – where wife diagnosed with terminal illness – where discussions took place between wife and husband concerning how wife’s life insurance payout would be used to benefit their children – where husband was nominated beneficiary under the policy – where after wife’s death dispute between wife’s mother and husband as to whether wife’s conversations with husband evidenced an intention by the husband and wife to create legal relations – whether these conversations constituted a contract for the benefit of the plaintiffs within the terms of s 55 Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)

Property Law Act 1974

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2000) 209 CLR 95
Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328
Nominal Defendant v Clements (1960) 104 CLR 476
Riches v Hogben [1986] 1 Qd R 315
Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72

COUNSEL:

N J Thompson for the plaintiffs

A P J Collins for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Gray’s Professional Services Group for the plaintiffs

Fitz-Walter Lawyers for the defendants

  1. MULLINS J: The plaintiffs are the children of the first defendant and his late wife Mrs Debbie Sorbello (“Mrs Sorbello”).  The second defendant is a company associated with the first defendant.  The plaintiff Gina Sorbello (“Gina”) was born in November 1980.  The plaintiff Jai Sorbello (“Jai”) was born in March 1983.  The plaintiff Andre Sorbello (“Andre”) who was born in June 1994 sues by his litigation guardian, Mrs Beryl Anderson, who is the mother of Mrs Sorbello and the grandmother of the plaintiffs.  Mrs Sorbello was diagnosed with cervical cancer in January 1995 and passed away on 17 November 1995.

  1. The plaintiffs allege that in or about February 1995 the deceased and the first defendant made an agreement (“the alleged agreement”) which is pleaded in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim as follows:

“a.         The First Defendant promised that the insurance policy nominated to be payable to the First Defendant were to be held and or received by him in the sum of $50,000.00 for his own benefit and in the sum of $100,000.00 for the benefit of their children, GINA SHEZ MARIA SORBELLO JAI DESMOND SORBELLO and ANDRE GIOVANI SORBELLO;
b.          The First Defendant promised that the Deceased’s equity (or equitable share had their joint tenancy in their matrimonial home at 27 Pintail Crescent, Burleigh Waters aforesaid…

Continue reading Sorbello v Sorbello

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sorbello v Sorbello [2005] QSC 219
Case
[2005] QSC 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, a dispute arose between a husband and his deceased wife's mother over the intended use of a life insurance payout. The deceased wife, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness, had discussions with her husband about how the payout from her life insurance policy, of which he was the beneficiary, would be used to benefit their children. The wife's mother challenged the husband's claim to the payout, arguing that the discussions between the husband and wife did not evidence an intention to create legal relations and, therefore, did not constitute a binding agreement. The central legal issue was whether the discussions between the husband and wife amounted to an agreement that would be recognised as a contract under the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld).

The court examined the nature of the discussions between the husband and wife and assessed whether these discussions were intended to create legal relations. It was determined that the discussions were not of a kind that would typically give rise to a binding contract, as they were informal and not documented. The court held that there was no evidence that the parties intended to be legally bound by the discussions. The wife's mother's argument that the conversations did not constitute an enforceable agreement was upheld, as the court found that the husband and wife did not intend for their discussions to create legal relations. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no binding contract in place regarding the use of the life insurance payout.

Given that no binding agreement was found to exist, the court dismissed the husband's claim. The dispute between the husband and the deceased wife's mother was resolved in favour of the latter, with the court ruling that the husband had no legal entitlement to the life insurance payout based on the discussions held with the deceased wife. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and documented agreements when intending to create legal relations.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceeding is dismissed

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.