A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd v Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 502

A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd v Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 502

The defendant was ordered to pay half the construction cost of the roundabout on the basis that, while no contract or equitable contribution arose, sufficient evidence established an implied request or acquiescence by the defendant for the work done, making out a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment.

Parties
First Plaintiff: A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: S & K Green Investments Pty Ltd; Defendant: Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Development Consent, Cost Sharing, Unjust Enrichment, Equitable Contribution, Implied Contract
Contract Restitution Equity Development Consent Cost Sharing Unjust Enrichment Equitable Contribution Implied Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

S & K Green Investments Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conversations, correspondence, and conduct gave rise to a contract between the parties to share the roundabout construction cost.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched and must pay half the construction cost on a restitutionary basis.
  3. 3 Whether the required elements for equitable contribution, including coordinate liability, are met.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was ordered to pay half the construction cost of the roundabout on the basis that, while no contract or equitable contribution arose, sufficient evidence established an implied request or acquiescence by the defendant for the work done, making out a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with interest to run from 1 December 2007