PAGE v VANKER and ANOR [1990] NSWCA 142

PAGE v VANKER and ANOR [1990] NSWCA 142

There was no sale of the 'Kelpie' rights and patents in the USA within the meaning of the agreement, as the transaction involved the transfer of shares in companies owning a variety of assets, not a direct or isolated sale of the rights or patents for a determinable price. The Court held that the agreement's triggering event did not occur, and the contractual obligation to pay A$100,000 was not enlivened. Admission of fresh evidence was unnecessary to decide the appeal.

Parties
Plaintiff: Miss Lily S Vanker; First Defendant/appellant: Mr Robert L Page; Second Defendant/respondent: Mr Donald B. Thompson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Construction of Contractual Terms, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Sale of Intellectual Property, Commercial Transactions, Reference to Authorities for Possible Tax Evasion
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Construction of Contractual Terms Fresh Evidence on Appeal Sale of Intellectual Property Commercial Transactions Reference to Authorities for Possible Tax Evasion

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Lily S Vanker

Plaintiff

Mr Robert L Page

First Defendant/appellant

Mr Donald B. Thompson

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transaction constituted a sale of 'Kelpie' rights and patents in the USA within the meaning of the contract
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal under s75A of the Supreme Court Act
  3. 3 Whether transaction involved colourable evasion of contractual rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sale of the 'Kelpie' rights and patents in the USA within the meaning of the agreement, as the transaction involved the transfer of shares in companies owning a variety of assets, not a direct or isolated sale of the rights or patents for a determinable price. The Court held that the agreement's triggering event did not occur, and the contractual obligation to pay A$100,000 was not enlivened. Admission of fresh evidence was unnecessary to decide the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment below set aside and judgment entered for the defendants.