White v Kohacek

In the case before the court, the plaintiffs, Mr White and Mrs White, sought to enforce an agreement that would have granted them an interest in property owned by the defendant, Mr Kohacek. The agreement in question was a Heads of Agreement signed by Mr White, Mr Kohacek, and Mr Kohacek’s deceased life partner. The dispute arose from the interpretation of this document and whether it created a legally binding contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the parties intended to create legal relations by signing the Heads of Agreement, and if so, whether the agreement could be enforced due to unconscionability, undue influence, or other equitable considerations. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiffs could rely on the agreement to claim any equitable relief, such as proprietary estoppel, joint endeavour constructive trust, or common intention constructive trust.

The court found that the parties did not intend to create legal relations by signing the Heads of Agreement. Although the document contained provisions that would have been incorporated into a formal contract for the sale of land, no such contract was executed. The court further determined that even if the parties had intended to create legal relations, the agreement would have been set aside on grounds of unconscionability due to the special disadvantage experienced by Mr Kohacek and his life partner, which the plaintiffs had actual or constructive knowledge of. However, the court found no undue influence was exerted by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court held that equity would not grant relief to the plaintiffs as the agreement was the product of their unconscionable conduct. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not rely on the agreement to claim any form of equitable relief or seek restitution for money had and received.

The court's final orders were that the agreement was not legally binding and could not be enforced. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any equitable relief based on the agreement, and no restitution was ordered.