HOOKER CORPORATION LIMITED v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY; HARRAH'S v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY; DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY v HOOKER CORPORATION LIMITED [1988] NSWCA 67

HOOKER CORPORATION LIMITED v DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY; HARRAH'S vy DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY; DARLING HARBOUR AUTHORITY vy HOOKER CORPORATION LIMITED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, PRIESTLEY and CLARKE JJA 18-22, 26-27 April 1988, 20 September 1988

[1988] NSWCA 67

Mahoney JA Hooker Corporation Limited (Hooker) and Harrahs have, in separate proceedings, claimed that a contract was made between them and Darling Harbour Authority (DHA) and the Honourable Kenneth George Booth (the Treasurer) for the erection and operation by them of a hotel and casino complex in the Darling Harbour area of the City of Sydney. They claim that the contract was repudiated by DHA and those associated with it (to whom I shall refer as the Government), that they have suffered loss from that repudiation, and that they are entitled to damages because of it. Alternatively, they claim recompense in respect of expense incurred by them in relation to the complex.

The trial judge held: that there was no such contract; that the Government was not estopped from alleging there was no such contract; and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in respect of the expense claimed. He therefore dismissed the plaintiffs' proceedings.

DHA and the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales have, separately, sued the plaintiffs and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (the Bank) for damages and upon a bank guarantee given by the bank as part of the arrangements between them. The learned judge gave judgment for Hookers and Harrahs.

The plaintiffs, the Government and the Attorney-General have respectively appealed to this court against his Honour's judgment.

The proceedings were before the learned trial judge for some sixty four days. The appeal papers are voluminous. Judgment was given by his Honour on 4 December 1987. The hearing of the appeal to this Court commenced on 18 April 1988 and has extended over some seven days. The matters so far argued relate, as the court has been informed, to some only of the issues which may require to be determined in order that judgment be finally given upon the respective claims of the parties. In certain events, further argument may become necessary in relation to issues which to date have not been argued.