KHAFAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED v ZEAITER [1996] NSWCA 303

KHAFAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED v ZEAITER [1996] NSWCA 303

The court held that the evidence of the parties' dealings, admissions by respondents at the time of profit payments, and supporting documentation incontrovertibly established that an informal partnership existed for the purchase and development of the properties and for sharing of profits and losses equally. The respondents' explanations for the payments were found to be wholly unconvincing, and thus, a partnership must be inferred from the facts.

Parties
Appellant: Khafam Developments Pty Limited; Respondent: Zeaiter; Respondent: Mr & Mrs Zeaiter; Respondent: Zeaiter company
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Existence of Informal Partnership, Sharing of Profits, Inference of Partnership From Conduct
Partnership Law Equity Existence of Informal Partnership Sharing of Profits Inference of Partnership From Conduct

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khafam Developments Pty Limited

Appellant

Zeaiter

Respondent

Mr & Mrs Zeaiter

Respondent

Zeaiter company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an informal partnership existed between the appellant and the respondents for the acquisition, development and sale of property, and construction of home units on behalf of the Housing Corporation.
  2. 2 Whether payments to the appellant constituted sharing of profits from a partnership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the evidence of the parties' dealings, admissions by respondents at the time of profit payments, and supporting documentation incontrovertibly established that an informal partnership existed for the purchase and development of the properties and for sharing of profits and losses equally. The respondents' explanations for the payments were found to be wholly unconvincing, and thus, a partnership must be inferred from the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Equity Division set aside.