Richards v Han [2022] FCA 1539

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Richards v Han [2022] FCA 1539 File number(s): ACD 71 of 2019 ACD 89 of 2019

Judgment of: HALLEY J

Date of judgment: 19 December 2022

Catchwords: CONTRACT – where contractual claims advanced by applicant in Proceedings ACD 89 of 2019 (Shareholding Proceedings) turn on alleged oral contract with express term to the effect that applicant would receive a 3% equity share in a company to be listed on a stock exchange to operate a business described as an "e-commerce and retail business" (Shareholding Contract) – whether there was any agreement that applicant would receive a 3% share of any other e-commerce and retail business – whether Shareholding Contract extended to the listing of any company on any stock exchange other than the ASX – whether there was any variation to the Shareholding Contract – whether there was a repudiation of the Shareholding Contract by first respondent – where no repudiation nor breach established and Shareholding Contract found to be abandoned or discharged by agreement CONSUMER LAW – where applicant alleges that first respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive in contravention of s 18 of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) or unconscionable conduct in contravention of ss 21 and 22 of ACL by allowing applicant to waive payments due to Web and Software Angels Pty Ltd, perform services for no charge and pay expenses in return for receiving a 3% share of company to be listed on a stock exchange (Stock Exchange Listing) in circumstances where first respondent had no intention of allocating a 3% share to applicant – where question of whether applicant has suffered loss or damage by reason of his ACL claims does not arise – where ACL claims dismissed RESTITUTION – where applicant presses a quantum meruit claim in the Shareholding Proceedings for work he performed in relation to the Stock Exchange Listing – where applicant presses a quantum meruit claim in Proceedings ACD 71 of 2019 (Lindeman Island Proceedings) for work that he undertook at request of first respondent in relation to the development by second respondent of three tourist resorts on Lindeman Island – where applicant established an entitlement to be paid an amount by way of a quantum meruit in the Lindeman Island Proceedings but only for his work as a project manager of the Lindeman Island development