Di Bello & Anor v De Costi Seafoods (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 267

Di Bello & Anor v De Costi Seafoods (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 267

The words used in the relevant conversation were not capable of supporting an enforceable guarantee: the parties did not evidence an intention to create legal relations in the form of a guarantee; nor was there a clear identification of the alleged guarantors or the nature and extent of the guarantee. Additionally, there was no evidence of ostensible or implied authority for the first claimant to bind the second claimant, nor was the necessary conduct for estoppel present.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and the Appeal Itself
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court judgment set aside; judgment for the defendants; costs orders as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
['guarantee' 'ostensible Authority' 'principal and Agent' 'estoppel']
['contract Law' 'company Law'] ['guarantee' 'ostensible Authority' 'principal and Agent' 'estoppel']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal and the Appeal Itself

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the conversation between the first claimant and Mr Costi gave rise to an enforceable contract of guarantee by either claimant.' 'Whether the first claimant had implied or ostensible authority to bind the second claimant to a guarantee.' 'Whether proper reasons were given by the Trial Judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The words used in the relevant conversation were not capable of supporting an enforceable guarantee: the parties did not evidence an intention to create legal relations in the form of a guarantee; nor was there a clear identification of the alleged guarantors or the nature and extent of the guarantee. Additionally, there was no evidence of ostensible or implied authority for the first claimant to bind the second claimant, nor was the necessary conduct for estoppel present.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court judgment set aside; judgment for the defendants; costs orders as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Direct that a notice of appeal be filed within seven days.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Set aside the judgment of the District Court.' 'In lieu, give judgment for the defendants with costs.' 'Order the opponent to pay the claimants’ costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.'...