RANSA Sydney Squadron Ltd & Anor v Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust & Anor [1999] NSWSC 569

RANSA Sydney Squadron Ltd & Anor v Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust & Anor [1999] NSWSC 569

There was no intention in the 1979 agreement to create a trust for the plaintiffs or to give them enforceable rights; no concluded agreement was ever reached on the terms of any lease, as all communications and negotiations remained subject to further agreement and formal execution; and the representations and conduct relied upon by the plaintiffs were insufficiently certain and unequivocal to found an estoppel. Any expectation or agreement for a lease was void for uncertainty as to terms. Accordingly, no entitlement arose for the plaintiffs to a lease or occupation, nor was any estoppel or enforceable obligation made out.

Parties
First Plaintiff: RANSA Sydney Squadron Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Thomas Reed Fisher representing Royal Australian Naval Sailing Association; First Defendant: Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust; Second Defendant: Minister for Land and Water Conservation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' statement of claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Third Party Beneficiary, Promissory Estoppel, Conventional Estoppel, Agreement to Agree, Crown Land Leases
Equity Contract Law Third Party Beneficiary Promissory Estoppel Conventional Estoppel Agreement to Agree Crown Land Leases

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RANSA Sydney Squadron Ltd

First Plaintiff

Thomas Reed Fisher representing Royal Australian Naval Sailing Association

Second Plaintiff

Rushcutters Bay Maritime Reserve Trust

First Defendant

Minister for Land and Water Conservation

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1979 agreement between the Commonwealth and State created a binding obligation enforceable by the plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries to grant a lease;
  2. 2 Whether a trust was created in favour of the plaintiffs under the 1979 agreement;
  3. 3 Whether promissory or conventional estoppel precluded the defendants from refusing to grant a lease or occupation of land;

Ratio Decidendi

There was no intention in the 1979 agreement to create a trust for the plaintiffs or to give them enforceable rights; no concluded agreement was ever reached on the terms of any lease, as all communications and negotiations remained subject to further agreement and formal execution; and the representations and conduct relied upon by the plaintiffs were insufficiently certain and unequivocal to found an estoppel. Any expectation or agreement for a lease was void for uncertainty as to terms. Accordingly, no entitlement arose for the plaintiffs to a lease or occupation, nor was any estoppel or enforceable obligation made out.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' statement of claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Statement of claim dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the proceedings