Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Bassat; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Cunningham's Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 498 I. Parties, Court, and Judges There is one appellant and three respondents involved in these proceedings. Equuscorp Pty Ltd (referred to as “Equuscorp”) is the appellant. Ian Haxton, Robert Bassat and Cunningham’s Warehouse Sales Pty Ltd (referred to as “the respondents”) are the respondents. This matter was heard in the High Court of Australia in front of Chief Justice French and Judges Gummow, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell. II. Procedural Posture of the Case Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements. III. Statement of Facts The investments that gave rise to this dispute concerned a blueberry farming enterprise oper... ... middle of paper ... ...ghts to Equuscorp. Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds . VII. Comments and Criticisms The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement. Contrarily, the decision in Equuscorp has
It was found in the primary court that Helen was not properly appointed as a director of LWC (Beck v L W Furniture Consolidated (Aust) Pty Limited (2011) NSWSC 235). This was not disputed in the Court of Appeal or the High Court (Weinstock, 48). In reaching this decision, Barrett J considered multiple factors, including Amiram’s status an...
In the case of Yerkey v Jones, Estyn and Florence Jones entered an agreement to purchase a poultry farm located in Payncham from John and Mary Yerkey. The purchase price was to be paid in installments and it was a condition of the agreement that part of the purchase price was to be secured by a mortgage over a separate property at Wakerville owned by Mrs Jones – the agreement required Estyn Jones to give an undertaking that he would procure the execution of the mortgage by his wife.
The first appellant (Ms Lavin) and the first respondent (Ms Toppi) were guarantors, jointly and severally liable for a consolidated loan in the amount of $7,768,000 (the loan) which was provided by the National Australia Bank (the Bank) to Luxe Studios Pty Ltd (Luxe), a company of which the parties were directors and equal shareholders.
“A breach of contract is committed when a party without lawful excuse fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively or anticipates himself from performing.” The laws around breach of contract have often been criticized for their unfair results this may be because the law does not aim to punish the defendant to instead aim for restoration for the claimant. The inadequacy of compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. It seems that there are few cases where the claimant is able to claim their full damages generally they are given a nominal sum that seems almost irrelevant to the claim for damages it is only on rare occasions where the claimant is completely restored. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequately remedies the remedy is “ ...a hollow one stripped of all practical force and void of content.” There is much difficulty in determining how to award damages and this has often led to unfairness.When recovering damages for breach of contract, there are generally three types of interest that the courts consider in order to find the most just result for the claimant. These three interests are: Expectation interest, Restitution interest and reliance interest. Expectation interest is the most common of the three and is used even though it is often criticized for creating results that are not relative to the breach. This essay will reflect upon these three types of interest in order to prove that damages for breach of contract do not always create a fair result. This is because the law in this area is inconsistent, especially in relationship to restitution interest that appears to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to re...
...f] Queensland: Queensland Law Reform Commission. pp. 2 - 20. Available through: QLD Government http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/wpapers/wp37.pdf [Accessed: 2 Mar 2014].
The dispute arises from a contract to dispose of the claimant’s vehicle. The issue was to resolve that defendant terminated the contract on the ground of repudiator breach and thus excluding them from the tendering process, when the claimant dealt with the vehicle without their consent, therefore the court has to decide whether the defendant had acted in bad faith. While dealing with the case, Dove J considered the length of the contractual relationship, the number of transactions and the substance of the contract. Thus he stated that good faith required the act of mutual trust and confidence between the parties and any act which is inconsistent with the party’s common purpose of long term relationship would be sufficient to constitute breach. His honour justice then recognised that there were not only breaches in express terms of the contract but also the implied terms of the duty of good faith. By satisfying the reasonable person test, Dove J declared that claimant’s grave misconduct had led to the termination of the contract and subsequent exclusion from the tender, therefore, there is no bad faith constitute in accordance of the defendants conduct. Then he referred Leggatt J in Yam Seng and reasoned that while interpreting the terms of the contract, court should take into account the background of the individual case and decide what would be reasonably and objectively to mean. Consequently, court went on to emphasise that several terms of the contract is highly sensitive to the context of the contract itself and thus warrant the implied duty of good faith. There is another sensitive issue also involved in this case, as D&G entered into a contract for dealing with the recovered property of member of the public; it was grave mistake to
In order to understand the Australian judicial system’s changing perspectives towards case management, it is important to look at two particular cases. The first is Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146, which will be referred to as the J L Holdings case. This is a significant case because it established how Australian courts initially approached pre-trial procedures and the administration of justice in civil procedure. The dispute between Queensland and J L Holdings had proceeded to the High Court because their original trial judge had refused Queensland to amend their defence and Queensland’s successful appeal, pleading that such a refusal would prejudice their argument, had allowed for the determination that the amendment should have been granted on the justification that courts should always prioritise the achievement of justice over the implementation of case management principles (Boniface & Legg 2010). The key point to take away from this case that is relevant is that this appeal had set a precedent that prioritised justice over any consideration for any consequence of delay or expense. However, this approach would soon be overturned in the case of Aon Risk Services
his decision concerns an application for permission to appeal against a decision 1 of Senior Deputy President Richards handed down on 7 May 2015 (Decision). The Decision concerned an unfair dismissal application made by Ms Elizabeth Atkinson on 12 January 2015 under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the termination of her employment by L.R.G catering Pty. Ltd T/A Marine Provisioning Australia (Respondent).
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
In the case Richardson vs. J. C. Flood company the appellate court ruled in favor of J. C Flood Company for the work that was done on Richardson’s property. The reason that the case turned out in J. C. Flood Company’s favor was due to the fact that Richardson would frequently check in on the progress of the work, but made no objection or attempt to stop the extra work from being don’t, until the entire job was finished when the appellant refused to pay any part of the bill submitted. The rule that is being implied on why J. C. Flood Company should receive the compensation for the work done could be that although the contract was never written this is a promissory estoppel which is a noncontractual promise. It was implied and that Richardson
Business law is very broad concept of law which covers all the legal issues that include many commercial and domestic cases which make up most of the civil cases and there are only few criminal cases where there has been serious breach of law. With the help of reference to relevant case law, this essay will argue that Bob Wheelie suffered economic loss due to fraudulent
First of all, it is important for us to understand this case in term of the rule and law .When this Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] case occurred, the doctrine of promissory estoppel had play an important role in English and Irish contract law. Besides that, it also brought an impact in other countries and became an important reference for the cases in the future. Promissory Estoppel was derived from equity and it occur when a party that relies on the promise of another party is injured or damaged . When the other party to the contract alters his/her deeds in reliance of that promise, a court will likely apply the Promissory Estoppel doctrine in order to prevent the party from enforcing the original terms of the contract and it also allows a promise to enforce even without any consideration.
Proposing that the two separate bodies of law ‘run in the same channel’, it is argued that they should not ‘mingle in their waters’. Suggesting that equity and common law should remain distinctly separate, irrespective of the fact that they are administered in the same court. This distinction between the common law and equity can be further illustrated through each system’s distinct legal claims and remedies available. According to the common law system damages are available as of right, whereas equitable remedies are completely
...bsp;This case is basically about the limitations that one can put on containers and how many items per container are to be considered one package. The Background is this Croft & Scully contracted to ship 1755 cases of soft drink for Houston to Kuwait. They arranged to ship the soda on board the M/V Skulptor Vuchetich, which arrived on Dec. 8, 1977. The cases were loaded into a container closed and sealed and stored till the ship came in to port. When the ship came in the agent of the vessel prepared a bill of lading and hired shippers Stevedoring to load the containers on the vessel. Upon loading the containers with a fork lift one of Stevedore’s employees dropped the container and 42,120 cans hit the ground and were damaged. Croft and Scully cued Goodpasture Shippers Stevedoring and Skulptor and her owners to pick up the tab. Croft and Scully are arguing the Himalaya Clause limiting recovery to $500 violates public policy. Even if liability is limited to $500 per package, Croft and Scully argues the cardboard cases of soft drinks rather than the 20 foot container should constitute the relevant package. The judgement was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part.
Then the claimant said he would accept the offer of £1000. The court held that there was no contract between them and Hyde’s respond of £950 was a counter offer which has put an end to the original offer. Then the subsequent acceptance of the original offer was not an acceptance as the original offer was no longer exist.