KURNELL DEVELOPMENTS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR. v. ORICA AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED & ORS. [1999] NSWCA 163

KURNELL DEVELOPMENTS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR. v. ORICA AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED & ORS. [1999] NSWCA 163

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the claimants' pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action; alleged agreement or representations for sale of land were not enforceable as essential conditions were unfulfilled; no prima facie case for unconscionable conduct or unjust enrichment was established; and summary dismissal was appropriate under SCR Pt 13 r 5.

Parties
Claimant/plaintiff: Kurnell Developments Pty. Limited; Claimant/plaintiff: Paul Williams; Opponent/defendant: Orica Australia Pty. Limited (formerly ICI Operations Pty. Limited); Opponent/defendant: Orica Limited (formerly ICI Australia Limited); Opponent/defendant: John Loschiavo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate – Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Unconscionable Conduct, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Unjust Enrichment, Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith
Practice and Procedure Contract Law Equity Trade Practices Summary Dismissal Unconscionable Conduct Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Unjust Enrichment +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kurnell Developments Pty. Limited

Claimant/plaintiff

Paul Williams

Claimant/plaintiff

Orica Australia Pty. Limited (formerly ICI Operations Pty. Limited)

Opponent/defendant

Orica Limited (formerly ICI Australia Limited)

Opponent/defendant

John Loschiavo

Opponent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Appellate – Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings disclosed a reasonable cause of action and should be summarily dismissed
  2. 2 Whether there was an enforceable agreement for sale of land or representations giving rise to relief
  3. 3 Whether there was unconscionable conduct or unjust enrichment by the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the claimants' pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action; alleged agreement or representations for sale of land were not enforceable as essential conditions were unfulfilled; no prima facie case for unconscionable conduct or unjust enrichment was established; and summary dismissal was appropriate under SCR Pt 13 r 5.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.