Owen v Costigan [2005] NSWSC 820

Owen v Costigan [2005] NSWSC 820

The defendant had no binding oral agreement, as any such agreement was subject to the preparation of written documentation and revoked by the written agreement. The defendant failed to exercise the option under the written agreement within time. Claims for rectification and estoppel were not supported by the evidence. The written agreement only required one payment of $30,000 plus the mortgage liability and did not require rectification. The defendant's entitlement to an equitable charge was left for further resolution.

Parties
Plaintiff: Bronwyn Patricia Owen; Defendant: Anthony Costigan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Possession Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds (save for issue of equitable charge, left for further determination)
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Option Agreement, Rectification, Estoppel, Equitable Charge
Property Law Equity Oral Agreement Option Agreement Rectification Estoppel Equitable Charge

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bronwyn Patricia Owen

Plaintiff

Anthony Costigan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to proprietary or possessory rights in the land based on an oral or written agreement
  2. 2 Whether the written option agreement should be rectified for alleged mistake
  3. 3 Whether estoppel prevents the plaintiff from denying the defendant's entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had no binding oral agreement, as any such agreement was subject to the preparation of written documentation and revoked by the written agreement. The defendant failed to exercise the option under the written agreement within time. Claims for rectification and estoppel were not supported by the evidence. The written agreement only required one payment of $30,000 plus the mortgage liability and did not require rectification. The defendant's entitlement to an equitable charge was left for further resolution.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds (save for issue of equitable charge, left for further determination)

Orders

  • Matter of equitable charge to be resolved by parties before final orders are made