Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201

Reported Decision : (2003) Aust Contract Reports 90-159

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Blashki v Utara [2002] NSWSC 1201 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4686/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 & 20 March, 4, 5 & 15 November and 3 December 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 December 2002

PARTIES : Phillip Sydney Blashki (P) Ida Bagus Utara (D) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J

COUNSEL : S J Burchett (P) G A Sirtes (D) SOLICITORS : Andrews (P) Burn & Company (D) CATCHWORDS : CONTRACTS [1] - General contractual principles - Offer and acceptance - Contract implied from conduct of parties - Whether possibility of analysis in terms of offer and acceptance is necessary to existence of contract - EQUITY [39] - General principles - Equitable charges and liens - Money expended or benefit conferred on property of another - GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY [1] - The contract of guarantee - What constitutes a guarantee - Generally - Necessity for defined principal obligation. A A Davison Pty Ltd v Seabrook (1931) 37 ALR 150 Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 Callahan v O'Neill [2002] NSWSC 877 Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Limited v Alderton (1964) 81 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 297 Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677 Cumming v Sands [2001] NSWSC 2; (2001) NSW ConvR 55-989 CASES CITED : Gordon v Norton (1887) 8 NSWLR 479 Jowitt v Callaghan (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 512 Mercantile Credits Ltd v Harry [1969] 2 NSWR 248 Morris v Morris [1982] 1 NSWLR 61 Pearson v Goldsborough, Mort & Company Limited [1931] SASR 320 Wong v Mura [2001] NSWCA 366 Meagher, Gummow & Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies (3rd Ed, 1996) [1210] O'Donovan and Phillips, The Modern Contract of Guarantee (2nd Ed, 1996) 62 DECISION : Relations of the parties as to subject property were regulated by contract: see [43]. There was no express, resulting or contructive trust nor any equitable charge in favour of plaintiff. There was no enforceable guarantee given by defendant.