Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12

Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12

The Court found that no binding contract arose from the November 2003 conversations between Ms Ashton and Mr Pratt due to lack of intention to create legal relations, imprecise obligations, and uncertainty in material terms. Ms Ashton suffered no relevant detriment and could not succeed on estoppel. The 2005 correspondence and subsequent release constituted accord and satisfaction, releasing all claims, including those purportedly on trust for the children. There was no unconscionability or undue pressure vitiating the releases.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['intention to Create Legal Relations' 'family and Domestic Arrangements' 'certainty of Contract' 'accord and Satisfaction' 'release' 'unconscionability' 'promissory Estoppel' 'fiduciary Obligations' 'appellate Deference to Trial Findings']
['contracts' 'equity' 'estoppel' 'trusts'] ['intention to Create Legal Relations' 'family and Domestic Arrangements' 'certainty of Contract' 'accord and Satisfaction' 'release' 'unconscionability' 'promissory Estoppel' 'fiduciary Obligations' 'appellate Deference to Trial Findings']

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 / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the November 2003 conversations between Ms Ashton and Mr Pratt give rise to a binding contract?' 'Was the first respondent (executor) estopped from denying any contract or promise to Ashton?' 'Did the February 2005 correspondence constitute an accord and satisfaction releasing all claims?' 'Did the November 2005 release involve unconscionability or other grounds for being set aside?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that no binding contract arose from the November 2003 conversations between Ms Ashton and Mr Pratt due to lack of intention to create legal relations, imprecise obligations, and uncertainty in material terms. Ms Ashton suffered no relevant detriment and could not succeed on estoppel. The 2005 correspondence and subsequent release constituted accord and satisfaction, releasing all claims, including those purportedly on trust for the children. There was no unconscionability or undue pressure vitiating the releases.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent.' 'Grant liberty to the first respondent to apply for an order for costs against the second and third respondents within seven days.']