LICHAA v LICHAA [2010] NSWSC 1510

LICHAA v LICHAA [2010] NSWSC 1510

The plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants entered any legally binding agreement to share one-third of the losses of the Daceyville development. The alleged conversations were imprecise, unsupported by contemporaneous records, contradicted or unreliable in important respects, and occurred in contexts including informal family gatherings that did not evidence an intention to create binding legal obligations. The documentary structure showed shareholdings in companies but no collateral agreement imposing liability for losses, and Karen Lee Lichaa was not shown to have personally agreed or authorised her husband to bind her to such an arrangement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim Concerning Alleged Agreement to Share Losses From Property Development Project / Separate Question; Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'oral Agreement' 'informal Family Discussions' 'property Development Losses' 'authority to Contract']
['contract Law'] ['contract Formation' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'oral Agreement' 'informal Family Discussions' 'property Development Losses' 'authority to Contract']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim Concerning Alleged Agreement to Share Losses From Property Development Project / Separate Question; Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any legally binding agreement was intended or made between the plaintiffs or either of them and the defendants or either of them in relation to sharing losses from the Daceyville development project.' 'What were the terms of any such agreement.' 'Whether the plaintiffs or either of them were entitled to recover the amounts claimed from the defendants or either of them by way of indemnity or damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants entered any legally binding agreement to share one-third of the losses of the Daceyville development. The alleged conversations were imprecise, unsupported by contemporaneous records, contradicted or unreliable in important respects, and occurred in contexts including informal family gatherings that did not evidence an intention to create binding legal obligations. The documentary structure showed shareholdings in companies but no collateral agreement imposing liability for losses, and Karen Lee Lichaa was not shown to have personally agreed or authorised her husband to bind her to such an arrangement.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs."]