Perry v Anthony [2016] NSWCA 56

Perry v Anthony [2016] NSWCA 56

The further agreement of 1 February 2000 was supported by consideration as a promise to pay $200,000 was made and accepted; the indemnity clause as constructed covered the full invested sums including funds provided by Ms Schipper; monthly profit distributions under the contract were correctly characterised as profits, not capital, based on the agreement’s express terms.

Parties
First Appellant: Vince Perry; Second Appellant: Perry Properties Pty Ltd; Respondent: Patricia Catherine Anthony
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Indemnity, Contract Formation, Consideration, Commercial Contracts, Contract Construction
Contract Contractual Indemnity Contract Formation Consideration Commercial Contracts Contract Construction

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vince Perry

First Appellant

Perry Properties Pty Ltd

Second Appellant

Patricia Catherine Anthony

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the February 2000 agreement was supported by consideration
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to indemnity for the $200,000 investment not contributed personally
  3. 3 Proper characterisation of distributed payments as profit or capital

Ratio Decidendi

The further agreement of 1 February 2000 was supported by consideration as a promise to pay $200,000 was made and accepted; the indemnity clause as constructed covered the full invested sums including funds provided by Ms Schipper; monthly profit distributions under the contract were correctly characterised as profits, not capital, based on the agreement’s express terms.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal