Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd v A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 225

Progressive Pod Properties Pty Ltd v A & M Green Investments Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 225

The appeal is allowed because there was insufficient evidence to establish that Progressive impliedly requested Greens to construct the roundabout or that Greens relied on any such request. Furthermore, the application to amend the pleading to assert these facts should be refused, as Progressive could have been prejudiced by the absence of these allegations at trial and might have adduced further evidence. Accordingly, Greens’ claim for restitution fails on both lack of request and reliance, and judgment is entered for Progressive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['unjust Enrichment' 'money Paid at Request' 'implied Request' 'reliance' 'pleading Amendment' 'apportionment of Construction Costs']
['restitution' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['unjust Enrichment' 'money Paid at Request' 'implied Request' 'reliance' 'pleading Amendment' 'apportionment of Construction Costs']

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 / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant impliedly requested the respondent to construct the roundabout for their joint benefit and at their mutual cost' 'Whether the respondent relied upon any such request in deciding to construct the roundabout' 'Whether respondent entitled to recover half of the construction cost from the appellant under unjust enrichment' 'Whether the pleading should be amended to assert implied request and reliance']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because there was insufficient evidence to establish that Progressive impliedly requested Greens to construct the roundabout or that Greens relied on any such request. Furthermore, the application to amend the pleading to assert these facts should be refused, as Progressive could have been prejudiced by the absence of these allegations at trial and might have adduced further evidence. Accordingly, Greens’ claim for restitution fails on both lack of request and reliance, and judgment is entered for Progressive.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Grant Greens leave to file within 7 days of this judgment a Notice of Contention in the form of the draft supplied to the Court.' "Dismiss Greens' application to amend its Further Amended Statement of Claim." 'Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the judgment and order for costs entered and made in favour of Greens at...