Bell v Eldridge & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1171

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Bell v Eldridge & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1171

HEARING DATE(S) : 30 April, 1 and 2 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 18 October 2007

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Palmer J

DECISION : Judgment for the Defendants.

CATCHWORDS : CONTRACT – SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – ESTOPPEL – Whether sufficient evidence of oral contract for transfer of land – whether oral terms too vague to create enforceable contract or estoppel. - CONVERSION – Whether plaintiff had been denied right to remove demountable house from defendants' property. - EMPLOYMENT – Whether sufficient evidence of hours worked by plaintiff.

Kathleen Ann Bell – Plaintiff PARTIES : Raymond Eldridge – First Defendant Florenville Pty Ltd – Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3718/04

COUNSEL : D.A. Hassall – Plaintiff G.A. Sirtes – Defendants

SOLICITORS : Jeanine Lloyd & Assoc – Plaintiff Baker Deane & Nutt – Defendants

3718/04 Bell v Eldridge

JUDGMENT 18 October, 2007

Introduction

1 The Plaintiff, Mrs Kathleen Bell, is the daughter of the First Defendant, Mr Raymond Eldridge. Mrs Bell and her brothers, Glen, Timothy and Anthony, are directors and shareholders of the Second Defendant, Florenville Pty Ltd. Florenville carries on a haulage and transport business. Mr Eldridge manages Florenville's business and is a shareholder in the company, although he is not a director. 2 Mr Eldridge is the sole registered proprietor of a property comprising some 280 acres at Rossi in New South Wales ("the Rossi Property"). The Rossi Property is divided into parcels of 40 acres but all parcels remain on the same title. 3 In 1990, Mrs Bell and her late husband, Walter, moved into a dilapidated house on the Rossi Property. In late 1995, Mr and Mrs Bell bought a demountable house and placed it on the Rossi Property with the permission of Mr Eldridge. They lived there rent free. Mr Bell died in 1997. Mrs Bell left the house in 2001. Mrs Bell now claims beneficial ownership of the land on which the house is erected. She also claims damages against Mr Eldridge for conversion or detinue of the house. 4 As against Florenville, Mrs Bell claims for wages and other employment benefits due, but not paid to her. 5 The pleading of Mrs Bell's case has been unnecessarily prolix and confusing. The Defendants have made several successful strike-out applications. Many parts of the Statement of Claim have been struck out, only to reappear in subsequent versions. The final pleading, a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim, remains prolix ­– it is some 37 pages and 114 paragraphs in length, and it is not easy to understand. What should have been a straightforward factual case has become unnecessarily complicated and expensive for the parties through want of clarity and precision in pleading. I will endeavour to distill Mrs Bell's case, as pleaded, in the following summary. 6 In respect of claims relating to the demountable house purchased by Mr and Mrs Bell, the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim alleges that: