Moshos v French [2015] NSWCA 106

Moshos v French [2015] NSWCA 106

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to reject the key evidence of Mr Moshos and to find that the emails and other objective facts were equivocal or inconsistent with the alleged October or November 2007 agreement. The later references to agreement, shareholding and partnership were more likely connected with later discussions, including discussions about Home, and did not establish that Mr Moshos had a binding entitlement to 50 per cent of the Company once the Centrepay facility was obtained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract' 'binding Agreement' 'specific Performance' 'damages for Breach of Contract' 'inferences From Objective Facts' 'separate Determination of Questions']
['contract' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['formation of Contract' 'binding Agreement' 'specific Performance' 'damages for Breach of Contract' 'inferences From Objective Facts' 'separate Determination of Questions']

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

Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sufficient evidence existed to establish that Mr Moshos and Mr French entered into a binding agreement in October or November 2007 under which Mr Moshos would receive 50 per cent of the shares in Local Appliance Rentals Pty Ltd after a Centrepay facility was obtained.' "Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting Mr Moshos's evidence and in declining to infer a binding contract from emails, assistance with the Centrepay facility, creation of an email account, spreadsheets and later requests for share allocation." 'Whether the references to agreement, shareholding and partnership in emails of April and May 2008 supported the alleged November 2007 agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to reject the key evidence of Mr Moshos and to find that the emails and other objective facts were equivocal or inconsistent with the alleged October or November 2007 agreement. The later references to agreement, shareholding and partnership were more likely connected with later discussions, including discussions about Home, and did not establish that Mr Moshos had a binding entitlement to 50 per cent of the Company once the Centrepay facility was obtained.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']