St George Football Association Inc v Soccer NSW Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1196

St George Football Association Inc v Soccer NSW Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1196

Because the defendant's asserted intention that no contractual relationship arise was uncommunicated and remained a privately held state of mind, it could not rationally affect the assessment of whether a contract was formed; the challenged affidavit passages were therefore irrelevant and rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Evidence Objection in Civil Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contract Formation / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Passages of affidavit rejected
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'subjective Intention' 'contract Formation' 'affidavit Evidence']
['evidence' 'contract Law'] ['relevance' 'subjective Intention' 'contract Formation' 'affidavit Evidence']

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

Evidence Objection in Civil Proceedings Concerning Alleged Contract Formation / Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of a party's uncommunicated subjective intention that no contract should arise could rationally affect the assessment of whether a contract was made." "Whether passages in the affidavit of the defendant's president stating such intention were admissible over a relevance objection."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant's asserted intention that no contractual relationship arise was uncommunicated and remained a privately held state of mind, it could not rationally affect the assessment of whether a contract was formed; the challenged affidavit passages were therefore irrelevant and rejected.

Court Disposition

Passages of affidavit rejected

Orders

  • ["The passage in paragraph 34 of Mr Doumanis's affidavit was rejected." "The same ruling applied to the last sentence of paragraph 38 of Mr Doumanis's affidavit."]