Adam v Hasabo [2019] NSWSC 1167

Adam v Hasabo [2019] NSWSC 1167

The Court found that Mr Hasabo did not at any time genuinely conduct himself as partner or joint venturer to Mr Adam; the consideration promised for Mr Adam's payments totally failed. Mr Adam was induced to make contributions by misleading or deceptive conduct and has not benefited from any such payments. Consequently, Mr Adam is entitled to restitution for the amounts reliably proved as his own contributions and certain loans, plus a declaration that payments for the lease bond and proceeds are held on trust for him. Judgment was entered for Mr Adam with respect to specific quantified sums supported by sufficient evidence, as well as costs and orders regarding the proceeds held by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff with declarations, monetary awards, trust orders, and costs.
Legal Topics
['ineffective Transactions' 'restitution of Money Paid' 'failure of Consideration' 'total Failure Rule' 'joint Venture' 'partnership' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Contract' 'loan Agreements' 'express Terms' 'damages' 'trust' 'account of Profits' 'equitable Compensation']
['equity' 'restitution' 'contracts' 'consumer Law'] ['ineffective Transactions' 'restitution of Money Paid' 'failure of Consideration' 'total Failure Rule' 'joint Venture' 'partnership' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Contract' 'loan Agreements' 'express Terms' 'damages' 'trust' 'account of Profits' 'equitable Compensation']

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 a joint venture or partnership between Mr Adam and Mr Hasabo regarding the Blacktown Shop?' 'Did the claimed loans from Mr Adam to Mr Hasabo occur and are they recoverable?' 'Did Mr Adam contribute amounts to the joint venture and is he entitled to restitution for failure of consideration?' 'Did Mr Hasabo engage in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law?' 'Is Mr Adam entitled to repayment or damages for payments he made based on alleged agreements?' 'Did Lamar have any independent liability for the sums claimed?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mr Hasabo did not at any time genuinely conduct himself as partner or joint venturer to Mr Adam; the consideration promised for Mr Adam's payments totally failed. Mr Adam was induced to make contributions by misleading or deceptive conduct and has not benefited from any such payments. Consequently, Mr Adam is entitled to restitution for the amounts reliably proved as his own contributions and certain loans, plus a declaration that payments for the lease bond and proceeds are held on trust for him. Judgment was entered for Mr Adam with respect to specific quantified sums supported by sufficient evidence, as well as costs and orders regarding the proceeds held by the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff with declarations, monetary awards, trust orders, and costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that $39,845.88 held by Hasabo is held on trust for Adam.' 'Declaration that Adam is beneficially entitled to $17,189.90 paid into Court.' 'Direction for Registry to pay $17,189.90 and interest to Adam.' 'Judgment for Adam against Hasabo for AUD 89,469.' 'Judgment for Adam against Hasabo for USD...