Johnson Property Group Pty Ltd v Thornton [2015] NSWSC 1389

Johnson Property Group Pty Ltd v Thornton [2015] NSWSC 1389

There was no oral contract between the parties as pleaded; the alleged agreement failed both on factual grounds (the relevant companies did not exist at the time, evidence for the agreement was not credible, defendants' evidence was preferred) and legal grounds (option agreements controlled, no agreement of mutual input or good faith co-operation existed beyond the option deeds). Proprietary estoppel claim failed because the plaintiffs were not ignorant of the true facts and there was no promise as required by equity. Unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims failed as the expenditure benefited both parties and occurred in anticipation of contractual relations. Relief, including an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['oral Contract' 'good Faith' 'co Operation' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment']
['contract' 'equity'] ['oral Contract' 'good Faith' 'co Operation' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Was there an oral contract for co-operation and good faith?' 'Did a collateral contract with respect to a detention pit exist?' 'Was proprietary estoppel established by the conduct of the parties?' 'Were the defendants unjustly enriched?' 'Were plaintiffs entitled to relief or orders?' 'Should the court impose an easement under Section 88K Conveyancing Act 1919?']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no oral contract between the parties as pleaded; the alleged agreement failed both on factual grounds (the relevant companies did not exist at the time, evidence for the agreement was not credible, defendants' evidence was preferred) and legal grounds (option agreements controlled, no agreement of mutual input or good faith co-operation existed beyond the option deeds). Proprietary estoppel claim failed because the plaintiffs were not ignorant of the true facts and there was no promise as required by equity. Unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims failed as the expenditure benefited both parties and occurred in anticipation of contractual relations. Relief, including an...

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • ['Claim under Section 88K of Conveyancing Act 1919 not pursued.' 'Claim dismissed with costs: costs on ordinary basis up to 11 December 2014, then on indemnity basis.' "Defendants' undertaking not to deal with subject land without 14 days' notice to expire on 6 October 2015." 'Exhibits to be returned after 28 days...