Khouri v Nicholas [2010] NSWDC 205

Khouri v Nicholas [2010] NSWDC 205

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral contract, joint venture, promises regarding shares or directorship, or delivery of a vehicle, and that no misleading or deceptive conduct occurred. The plaintiff did, however, substantiate that $18,094.58 was paid by him for the benefit of the second defendant (Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited) for property works, and the defendant was unjustly enriched by this sum. The first defendant's cross claim failed as he did not prove loss or misleading conduct by the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Khouri; First Defendant: Joseph Nicholas; Second Defendant: Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Partly in favour of the plaintiff; in part for first defendant on plaintiff's claim; plaintiff succeeds against second defendant for a quantified sum; cross claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Money Had and Received, Goods Sold and Delivered, Cross Claim, Oral Agreements, Unit Trusts
Contract Trade Practices Equity Breach of Contract Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Money Had and Received Goods Sold and Delivered Cross Claim +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Khouri

Plaintiff

Joseph Nicholas

First Defendant

Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an enforceable oral contract between the plaintiff and defendants for the purchase and operation of property and businesses.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached any such contract.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or the Fair Trading Act 1987.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral contract, joint venture, promises regarding shares or directorship, or delivery of a vehicle, and that no misleading or deceptive conduct occurred. The plaintiff did, however, substantiate that $18,094.58 was paid by him for the benefit of the second defendant (Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited) for property works, and the defendant was unjustly enriched by this sum. The first defendant's cross claim failed as he did not prove loss or misleading conduct by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Partly in favour of the plaintiff; in part for first defendant on plaintiff's claim; plaintiff succeeds against second defendant for a quantified sum; cross claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Verdict for the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant (Lisbon Waste Depot Pty Limited) for $18,094.58 plus interest.
  • Judgment for the 1st defendant (Joseph Nicholas) against the plaintiff on the plaintiff's claim.