P J Leahy & Ors v A R Hill & Anor [2018] NSWSC 6

P J Leahy & Ors v A R Hill & Anor [2018] NSWSC 6

The Leahy parties had only a remote prospect of establishing that a binding settlement agreement came into existence, because the acceptance was deliberately expressed as "in principle" and confirmed in writing as subject to a suitable deed being agreed, the proposed settlement was relatively complex in circumstances where the Hill parties were in transit and unlikely to have obtained Counsel's advice, and real complexities would likely arise in documenting releases. Given that limited prospect and the ability to limit duplicated costs by early determination if needed, the Court declined to stay and delay the NCAT proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration and Specific Performance of an Alleged Settlement Agreement, With an Application to Stay NCAT Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Dated 20 December 2017
Outcome
The Notice of Motion dated 20 December 2017 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['formation of Settlement Agreement' 'intention to Make Concluded Bargain' 'agreement in Principle' 'application to Stay NCAT Proceedings' 'specific Performance']
['contracts' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['formation of Settlement Agreement' 'intention to Make Concluded Bargain' 'agreement in Principle' 'application to Stay NCAT Proceedings' 'specific Performance']

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

Equity Proceedings Seeking a Declaration and Specific Performance of an Alleged Settlement Agreement, With an Application to Stay NCAT Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Dated 20 December 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conversation, letter and email on 8 December 2017 gave rise to a binding settlement agreement.' 'Whether the Leahy parties established a sufficient basis for a stay of the NCAT proceedings pending determination of their claim in this Court.' 'Whether the words "in principle" and "subject to a suitable deed being agreed between the parties" indicated that no concluded bargain had been made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Leahy parties had only a remote prospect of establishing that a binding settlement agreement came into existence, because the acceptance was deliberately expressed as "in principle" and confirmed in writing as subject to a suitable deed being agreed, the proposed settlement was relatively complex in circumstances where the Hill parties were in transit and unlikely to have obtained Counsel's advice, and real complexities would likely arise in documenting releases. Given that limited prospect and the ability to limit duplicated costs by early determination if needed, the Court declined to stay and delay the NCAT proceedings.

Court Disposition

The Notice of Motion dated 20 December 2017 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion dated 20 December 2017 be dismissed with costs.' "By noon on 30 January 2018, the Plaintiffs advise whether a final hearing of the proceedings is required, by letter or email to the Defendants' solicitors, with a copy to the Associate to Black J." 'List the matter for directions at 9.15am...