NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Mathas v Slater; Donnybrook Properties Pty Ltd v Simpson [2009] NSWSC 1397
HEARING DATE(S) : 19 - 23 October 2009
JUDGMENT DATE : 11 December 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Rein J
(1) Mr Simpson is liable to Donnybrook to pay $350,000 plus interest, subject to the offset of the amount referred to in (3) below; (2) Mr Slater is liable to pay to Mr Simpson a commission of $268,833 plus interest from a reasonable period after the date of sale of the property, which I would treat as four weeks from the date of sale of Lots 15 and 16; DECISION : (3) Donnybrook is liable to pay Mr Simpson $60,000 from the proceeds of sale of Hendrix, plus interest from four weeks after the sale of the horse; (4) GLSP is liable to Donnybrook for the balance of the loan account, i.e. $127,252. If that does not include interest, that will need to be calculated; (5) Mr Simpson is not personally liable for the loan balance referred to in (4) above; (6) Mr Simpson is not liable for $40,000 of Deacons' fees or the costs of defending the Deacons claim.
CATCHWORDS : EQUITY – general principles – fiduciary obligations – fiduciary relationship arising between investment adviser and advisee – whether investment adviser has breached his fiduciary obligation when failing to properly advise about an investment in which he had a conflict of interest - CONTRACTS – loan agreement, dispute as to parties to and terms of agreement – agreement to invest funds in return for a 'profit share', dispute as to parties to and terms of agreement – agreement for payment of commission for assistance in sale of property, dispute as to terms of agreement, whether s 60 of Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA) applicable – agreement by third party to pay or guarantee legal fees, dispute as to terms of agreement – agreement to purchase horse and share profit upon sale, dispute as to the purchase price and the sharing of costs - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – claim for equitable damages for breach of fiduciary obligations – whether limitation period applies by analogy pursuant to s 23 of the Limitation Act 1969
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate