Helen Anne Henry & Ors v Richard James Creswick [2009] NSWDC 41

Helen Anne Henry & Ors v Richard James Creswick [2009] NSWDC 41

The plaintiffs did not prove the alleged oral agreement. The Court held that Mr Robson's recollection was poor and unreliable, there was no contemporaneous record of the alleged important meeting, and contemporaneous documents and surrounding circumstances supported the inference that Mr Creswick did not know before January 2003 that Bintrak's NAB debt had been refinanced and repaid by the Henry and Robson interests. Accordingly, the discussion alleged by Mr Robson was not established and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Alleged Breach of an Oral Agreement / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['alleged Oral Agreement' 'joint Venture Company' 'shareholders' 'company Debt Refinancing' 'guarantees and Mortgages' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['alleged Oral Agreement' 'joint Venture Company' 'shareholders' 'company Debt Refinancing' 'guarantees and Mortgages' 'credibility of Witnesses' '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 Action for Alleged Breach of an Oral Agreement / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, in August or September 2002, the plaintiffs and the defendant made an oral agreement that the Henry and Robson interests would refinance Bintrak Systems Pty Limited's NAB debt and the defendant would repay 50% of that loan, associated fees and interest." 'Whether the evidence of the alleged conversation, in light of the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous documents, established the pleaded oral agreement.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for breach of the alleged oral agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs did not prove the alleged oral agreement. The Court held that Mr Robson's recollection was poor and unreliable, there was no contemporaneous record of the alleged important meeting, and contemporaneous documents and surrounding circumstances supported the inference that Mr Creswick did not know before January 2003 that Bintrak's NAB debt had been refinanced and repaid by the Henry and Robson interests. Accordingly, the discussion alleged by Mr Robson was not established and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and Judgment for the Defendant.' 'The exhibits be returned.' 'Costs on the ordinary basis should follow the event, but the Court will hear from the parties if either wishes to make a submission on the matter.']