Jobst v Becke [2001] NSWSC 277

Jobst v Becke [2001] NSWSC 277

Because the respondents entered into the settlement knowing that the appellants proposed to draw water from the holding tank for their own purposes and that the respondents would receive only the surplus water, there was no evidentiary basis to imply a term requiring the appellants to ensure an uninterrupted flow of water to the respondents' land. The implied term was not reasonable and equitable, not necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, and not so obvious as to go without saying; the magistrate therefore made an error of law warranting intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Stated Case From Local Court Civil Claim / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['implied Terms in Contract' 'appeal by Stated Case' 'error of Law' 'terms of Settlement' 'cross Claim']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'local Court Civil Claims'] ['implied Terms in Contract' 'appeal by Stated Case' 'error of Law' 'terms of Settlement' 'cross Claim']

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

Appeal by Way of Stated Case From Local Court Civil Claim / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was an evidentiary or legal basis to imply into the terms of settlement a condition requiring the appellants to provide an uninterrupted flow of water and not impede the flow onto the respondents' land." 'Whether any breach of an implied condition discharged the respondents from their obligation to pay the balance due under clause 8 of the terms of settlement.' 'Whether procedural non-compliance or delay in the stated case appeal warranted dismissal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents entered into the settlement knowing that the appellants proposed to draw water from the holding tank for their own purposes and that the respondents would receive only the surplus water, there was no evidentiary basis to imply a term requiring the appellants to ensure an uninterrupted flow of water to the respondents' land. The implied term was not reasonable and equitable, not necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, and not so obvious as to go without saying; the magistrate therefore made an error of law warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The appellants are entitled to judgment on the cross-claim.' 'The Court would consult the parties about the appropriate formal order and, if necessary, hear argument on costs.']