Young v Geo Group Australia - [2019] VSC 320

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S CI 2012 07031

DANIEL YOUNG	Plaintiff
v
THE GEO GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 051 120 600)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 May 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Young v GEO Group Australia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 320

---

CONTRACT –Whether an ‘agreement in principle’ to settle a proceeding is a concluded agreement that is final and binding –Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, considered and applied – Correspondence between counsel purporting to settle the proceeding – Where client had no direct involvement in the negotiations – Cook v Taing [2014] VSC 428, considered and applied – Whether counsel had the actual or ostensible authority to bind his client – Harvey v Phillips [1956] 95 CLR 235 and Donellan v Watson (1990) NSWLR 335, referred to – Declaration that the settlement agreement is valid and enforceable, subject to approval of the Court

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff in person
For the Defendant	Mr N Murdoch QC with Ms J Cowen	Meridian Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff is a former prisoner at Fulham Prison in Sale, Victoria, a custodial facility operated by the defendant. This proceeding was issued on 17 December 2012, when the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant seeking damages for psychological injury, said to have been caused by the defendant subjecting him to improper and humiliating visual cavity searches or ‘strip searches’.

The writ and statement of claim were served on the defendant in late 2013. The plaintiff took no further steps for almost five years. The defendant filed an application to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution in April 2018 (‘first summons’).

On 25 May 2018, the defendant’s application was listed for the hearing before Ierodiaconou AsJ. At the hearing the defendant raised the issue of whether the plaintiff intended the proceeding to be an individual proceeding or a group proceeding. If the matter was a group proceeding, the plaintiff would need to comply with the notice requirement under section 33X of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) before the defendant’s application could proceed. The plaintiff was ordered to serve a draft amended statement of claim to confirm whether the proceeding was intended to be an individual or group proceeding. Subsequently, the Court has directed the plaintiff to file his amended statement of claim on two further occasions. However, no amended statement of claim has been filed.

The defendant’s summons was listed for hearing on 19 October 2018. Prior to the hearing date, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations through their legal representatives. The defendant contends that an agreement was reached on 18 October 2018. However, a dispute arose between the parties as to whether or not the purported agreement to resolve the proceeding (‘settlement agreement’) was enforceable. At a directions hearing on 16 November 2018…

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 Young v Geo Group Australia

Details

AGLC: Young v Geo Group Australia [2019] VSC 320
Case: [2019] VSC 320
Decision Date: 17 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Young v Geo Group Australia, the parties involved were the plaintiff, Young, and the defendant, Geo Group Australia. The dispute centred on whether an ‘agreement in principle’ to settle a proceeding was a concluded agreement that was final and binding. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, subject to the approval of the Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the correspondence between counsel, which purported to settle the proceeding, constituted a concluded agreement, and whether counsel had the actual or ostensible authority to bind his client. The court considered the case of Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, which emphasised that an agreement in principle could be binding if it contained all the essential terms and there was an intention to be bound. The court also considered Cook v Taing [2014] VSC 428, which held that a client had to have direct involvement in the negotiations for a settlement agreement to be binding.

The court held that the correspondence between counsel did not constitute a concluded agreement as the client had no direct involvement in the negotiations. The court also held that the counsel did not have the actual or ostensible authority to bind his client. The court referred to Harvey v Phillips [1956] 95 CLR 235 and Donellan v Watson (1990) NSWLR 335, which held that for a settlement agreement to be binding, the client must have direct involvement in the negotiations and the counsel must have the actual or ostensible authority to bind the client.

The court made a declaration that the settlement agreement was not valid and enforceable, subject to the approval of the Court. The court held that the client had no direct involvement in the negotiations and the counsel did not have the actual or ostensible authority to bind the client. The court held that the settlement agreement was not binding and the proceeding would continue.

Orders