Wright & Anor v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd [2003] QCA 36
[2003] QCA 36
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2003-02-14|Before: McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie JSeparate, reasons for judgment of each member of the Court:, In both appeals, McMurdo P and Mackenzie J concurring as to paragraph one, of the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting in part, Jerrard, JA and Mackenzie J, concurring as to paragraph two of the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting, McMurdo, P and Jerrard JA concurring as, to paragraph three of the orders made, Mackenzie, J dissenting in part, McMurdo P and Mackenzie J concurring as to paragraph four, of the orders made.
McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie JSeparate, reasons for judgment of each member of the Court:, In both appeals, McMurdo P and Mackenzie J concurring as to paragraph one
Catchwords
ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL IN PAIS – EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL –
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL – where representations made by appellant
did not
contain details of the method of licence renewal – where representations
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL IN PAIS – EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL –PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL – where representations made by appellantdid notcontain details of the method of licence renewal – where representationsoral – where learned primary judge foundthat the appellants were estoppedfrom denying the existence of agreements for renewal – whetherrepresentations were sufficientlyunambiguous to found an estoppelREAL PROPERTY – LICENCES – GENERALLY – where appellantmade oral promise to renew respondents’ licence –where learnedprimary judge found this promise to constitute a collateral contract to the mainlicence agreement – whetherfinding of collateral contract by learnedprimary judge was inconsistent with main licence agreementsPROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND –PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – DEFENCEAND CONTERCLAIM– where appellant’s application to amend its defence and
counterclaim refused by learned judge below
– where learned judge below
viewed the application to amend as an attempt to add detail to the declarations
made by the learned
judge at first instance – whether appellant was
prejudiced by reason of this refusal
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE
WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL –
where appellant sought
a declaration from second learned primary judge in different terms to the orders
made by the learned primary
judge – where second learned primary judge
made orders giving effect only to the earlier declarations of the learned
primary
judge – whether appropriate to alter the wording of the final
relief declarations made by the learned primary judge
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld), r 5, r 770
ACN 055 389 725 Pty Ltd & Ors v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd
[1998] QSC 030
SC No 8982 of 1996, 17 March 1998, consideredGates v
City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1, citedHeilbut
Symons & Co v Buckleton [1912] UKHL 2
[1913] AC 30, consideredHospital Products
Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64
(1984) 156 CLR 41,
citedHoyt’s Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64
(1919) 27 CLR 133,
followedJohnson Matthey Ltd v A C Rochester Overseas Corp (1990) 23
NSWLR 190, consideredLegione v Hateley [1983] HCA 11
(1983) 152 CLR 406,
consideredState Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty
Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 170, followedWaltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v
Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387, consideredWright & Anor v Hamilton
Island Enterprises Ltd [1998] QSC 029
SC No 8981 of 1996, 17 March 1998,
considered
Judgment (10 paragraphs)
[1]
ESTOPPEL - ESTOPPEL IN PAIS - EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - where representations made by appellant did not contain details of the method of licence renewal - where representations oral - where learned primary judge found that the appellants were estopped from denying the existence of agreements for renewal - whether representations were sufficiently unambiguous to found an estoppel REAL PROPERTY - LICENCES - GENERALLY - where appellant made oral promise to renew respondents' licence - where learned primary judge found this promise to constitute a collateral contract to the main licence agreement - whether finding of collateral contract by learned primary judge was inconsistent with main licence agreements PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PLEADING - DEFENCE AND CONTERCLAIM - where appellant's application to amend its defence and counterclaim refused by learned judge below - where learned judge below viewed the application to amend as an attempt to add detail to the declarations made by the learned judge at first instance - whether appellant was prejudiced by reason of this refusal APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL-GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW - IN GENERAL - where appellant sought a declaration from second learned primary judge in different terms to the orders made by the learned primary judge - where second learned primary judge made orders giving effect only to the earlier declarations of the learned primary judge - whether appropriate to alter the wording of the final relief declarations made by the learned primary judge Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld), r 5, r 770 ACN 055 389 725 Pty Ltd & Ors v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd[1998] QSC 030; SC No 8982 of 1996, 17 March 1998, considered
[2]
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1, cited