Europlex Pty Ltd v Unique Living Australia Pty Ltd; Unique Living Australia Pty Ltd v Europlex Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1291

Europlex Pty Ltd v Unique Living Australia Pty Ltd; Unique Living Australia Pty Ltd v Europlex Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1291

The Building Contract executed between Unique Living and Europlex was binding, supported by consideration, and not a sham; Europlex did not prove any entitlement to 30% profit from the Terrigal development as profit had not been made or shown. Claims regarding the East Gosford property were dismissed for lack of an enforceable agreement. Unique Living was entitled to contractual damages pursuant to the Building Contract.

Parties
First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant: Europlex Pty Limited; Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant: Radoslav Minarovic; Defendant/cross Claimant: Unique Living Australia Pty Limited; Third Cross Defendant: Roman Cerny
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; cross-claimant entitled to contractual damages
Legal Topics
Agreement to Develop Property, Profit Sharing Agreement, Contract Formation, Consideration, Sham Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Building and Construction Contracts Commerce Agreement to Develop Property Profit Sharing Agreement Contract Formation Consideration Sham Contract +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Europlex Pty Limited

First Plaintiff/first Cross Defendant

Radoslav Minarovic

Second Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant

Unique Living Australia Pty Limited

Defendant/cross Claimant

Roman Cerny

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agreement to develop the Terrigal property and share profit was binding and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether a like agreement existed in relation to the East Gosford property
  3. 3 Whether the Building Contract between Europlex and Unique Living was binding or a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The Building Contract executed between Unique Living and Europlex was binding, supported by consideration, and not a sham; Europlex did not prove any entitlement to 30% profit from the Terrigal development as profit had not been made or shown. Claims regarding the East Gosford property were dismissed for lack of an enforceable agreement. Unique Living was entitled to contractual damages pursuant to the Building Contract.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; cross-claimant entitled to contractual damages

Orders

  • Europlex's claim dismissed
  • Judgment for Unique Living Australia Pty Limited against Europlex Pty Limited in the amount of $5,023,040.53