Johnston v Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 150

Johnston v Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 150

The variation of the Deed of Settlement occurred by an offer and acceptance between solicitors on 24 and 25 November 2011; the obligation to pay $170,000 was deferred, not discharged or released; post-contractual conduct was admissible as admissions that payment was owing on deferred terms; the trial judge's findings were correct in upholding the respondents’ position that payment was merely postponed and due after reasonable notice, which was given.

Parties
First Appellant: Paul Arthur Johnston; Second Appellant: Blair Massey Warren; First Respondent: Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Peter Wilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Variation of Contracts, Proof of Terms of Variation, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Browne V Dunn Rule, Equitable Estoppel
Contract Law Evidence Equity Variation of Contracts Proof of Terms of Variation Admissibility of Evidence Cross Examination Browne V Dunn Rule +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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Arthur Johnston

First Appellant

Blair Massey Warren

Second Appellant

Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Peter Wilson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the variation to the Deed of Settlement dated 12 May 2011?
  2. 2 Was the obligation to pay $170,000 expunged or merely deferred by the variation?
  3. 3 Are post-contractual admissions admissible as to the terms of the variation?

Ratio Decidendi

The variation of the Deed of Settlement occurred by an offer and acceptance between solicitors on 24 and 25 November 2011; the obligation to pay $170,000 was deferred, not discharged or released; post-contractual conduct was admissible as admissions that payment was owing on deferred terms; the trial judge's findings were correct in upholding the respondents’ position that payment was merely postponed and due after reasonable notice, which was given.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.