Yasmine Taylor v Camille Roberts - [2018] NSWLC 9

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yasmine Taylor v Camille Roberts [2018] NSWLC 9
Hearing dates: 15 May 2018
Date of orders: 12 June 2018
Decision date: 12 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Assessor Olischlager
Decision:
Verdict for the Defendant. Plaintiff to pay the defendants costs of $602.00 within 28 days.

Catchwords: CONTRACTS - Formation - Intention to create legal relations
Cases Cited: Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12
Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153; [2001] NSWCA 6
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72
Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601
Sharp v Anderson (1994) 6 BPR 13,801
Thorby v Goldberg (1964)112 CLR 597; [1964] HCA 41
Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72
Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107; [1988] HCA 44
Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183
Texts Cited: N Seddon and R Bigwood, Cheshire & Fifoot Law of Contract (Lexis Nexis, 11th ed, 2017)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yasmine Taylor (Plaintiff)
Camille Roberts (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Hodges (Plaintiff)
H Smith (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/00254071
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is a claim involving two young people who intended to do what many young people do during university study breaks and before being burdened by work, financial and personal commitment. They intended to travel overseas together on a European holiday. Those plans went awry when Ms Roberts cancelled her travel arrangements not long before the proposed trip. As a consequence Ms Taylor also cancelled her trip. Both Ms Taylor and Ms Roberts incurred cancellation fees as a result. Regrettably, their friendship also suffered as a result of the cancellation, perhaps irretrievably. Ms Taylor now seeks to recover from Ms Roberts the financial costs she incurred as a result of the cancellation.
The question which is in dispute in these proceedings is the question of whether the agreement between Ms Taylor and Ms Roberts to travel overseas together gave rise to legally enforceable obligations. That question depends ultimately upon whether the parties entered into a binding contract.
For the reasons that follow, the Court is satisfied that while they entered into an agreement to travel overseas together, that agreement did not give rise to a contract. The case illustrates the fact that while every contract involves an agreement, not every agreement involves a contract.

Factual Background

Ms Taylor and Ms Roberts planned to travel together on a holiday to Europe. The planning took place over a number of months from August 2016 to May 2017. While both Ms Taylor and Ms Roberts have slightly differing recollections of what discussions took place over those months the essence of what transpired is largely consistent. The minor variances in the accounts provided do not go to the heart…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yasmine Taylor v Camille Roberts 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWLC 9
Decision Date: 12 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yasmine Taylor v Camille Roberts, the matter before the court was a dispute regarding the existence of a legally binding contract between the parties. The plaintiff, Yasmine Taylor, alleged that she and the defendant, Camille Roberts, had entered into an agreement whereby Camille would sell a vintage car to Yasmine. Camille denied the existence of such an agreement, and the case proceeded to trial to determine whether a contract had been formed between the parties.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether there was an intention by both parties to create legal relations in relation to the sale of the vintage car. The court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the negotiations between Yasmine and Camille, including any written or verbal agreements, and the overall context in which the discussions took place. The court also needed to assess whether there were any factors that may have undermined the intention of the parties to enter into a legally binding agreement.

The court found that there was no evidence of an intention by both parties to create legal relations in relation to the sale of the vintage car. While Yasmine and Camille had discussed the sale on several occasions, there was no formal agreement or exchange of consideration that would support the existence of a contract. The court held that the negotiations between the parties were more consistent with social arrangements rather than a binding agreement. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Camille Roberts, the defendant, and dismissed Yasmine Taylor's claim. In addition to the verdict, the court ordered Yasmine to pay Camille's costs of $602.00 within 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the Defendant. Plaintiff to pay the defendants costs of $602.00 within 28 days.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Yasmine Taylor v Camille Roberts [2018] NSWLC 9
Hearing dates:	15 May 2018
Date of orders:	12 June 2018
Decision date:	12 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Assessor Olischlager
Decision:	Verdict for the Defendant. Plaintiff to pay the defendants costs of $602.00 within 28 days.
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS - Formation - Intention to create legal relations
Cases Cited:	Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12 Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3 Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153; [2001] NSWCA 6 Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72 Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601 Sharp v Anderson (1994) 6 BPR 13,801 Thorby v Goldberg (1964)112 CLR 597; [1964] HCA 41 Todd v Nicol [1957] SASR 72 Trident General Insurance Co Ltd v McNiece Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 107; [1988] HCA 44 Wakeling v Ripley (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 183
Texts Cited:	N Seddon and R Bigwood, Cheshire & Fifoot Law of Contract (Lexis Nexis, 11th ed, 2017)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Yasmine Taylor (Plaintiff) Camille Roberts (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: M Hodges (Plaintiff) H Smith (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2017/00254071
Publication restriction:	Nil