Thompson v White & Anor; ACDC v Thompson [2005] NSWSC 1257

Thompson v White & Anor; ACDC v Thompson [2005] NSWSC 1257

The consistent evidence of witnesses who heard the Seaforth relationship described in Mr Thompson's presence as a joint venture led the Court to reject Mr Thompson's denial. Mr Thompson, Mr White and Mr Libut had agreed to acquire, develop and sell suitable properties through a joint venture, and the Seaforth property became their first joint venture asset even though registered in Mr Thompson's name because he or Mrs Thompson provided the initial funds. Profits were initially to be shared equally and were later varied so Mr Thompson would receive 50% of the first $500,000 profit, with any excess shared equally. The absence of express discussion of losses or indemnities did not make the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Civil Proceedings Concerning an Alleged Joint Venture and Construction Related Claims / Determination of Issues Other Than Specified Quantification Issues Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 28.2; Proposed Reference of Quantification Issues to an Expert Referee Under R 20.14(1)
Outcome
Declaration that the Seaforth land was held as a joint venture asset; quantification questions to be referred to an expert referee or referees; parties to be heard on the terms of declarations, reference and costs.
Legal Topics
['oral Joint Venture Agreement' 'construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'property Development' 'profit Sharing' 'reference to Expert Referee']
['contracts' 'equity' 'civil Procedure' 'construction Law'] ['oral Joint Venture Agreement' 'construction and Interpretation of Contracts' 'property Development' 'profit Sharing' 'reference to Expert Referee']

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 Division Civil Proceedings Concerning an Alleged Joint Venture and Construction Related Claims / Determination of Issues Other Than Specified Quantification Issues Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 28.2; Proposed Reference of Quantification Issues to an Expert Referee Under R 20.14(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Seaforth land purchased in Mr Thompson's name was his individual investment or a joint venture asset of Mr Thompson, Mr White and Mr Libut." 'What the agreement between the parties was concerning purchase, development, sale and profit sharing for the Seaforth property.' 'Whether the alleged joint venture arrangement was too vague to enforce because losses and indemnities were not expressly discussed.' 'Whether quantification issues should be referred to an expert referee.']

Ratio Decidendi

The consistent evidence of witnesses who heard the Seaforth relationship described in Mr Thompson's presence as a joint venture led the Court to reject Mr Thompson's denial. Mr Thompson, Mr White and Mr Libut had agreed to acquire, develop and sell suitable properties through a joint venture, and the Seaforth property became their first joint venture asset even though registered in Mr Thompson's name because he or Mrs Thompson provided the initial funds. Profits were initially to be shared equally and were later varied so Mr Thompson would receive 50% of the first $500,000 profit, with any excess shared equally. The absence of express discussion of losses or indemnities did not make the...

Court Disposition

Declaration that the Seaforth land was held as a joint venture asset; quantification questions to be referred to an expert referee or referees; parties to be heard on the terms of declarations, reference and costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the land was held as a joint venture asset.' 'Questions of quantification are to be referred to an expert referee or to expert referees with differing qualifications.' 'The parties are to bring in short minutes of orders reflecting the reasons.' 'The parties are to be heard on costs.']