NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Prasad v Sangha [2012] NSWCA 92 Hearing dates: 5 April 2012 Decision date: 19 April 2012 Before: Meagher JA at [1] Bergin CJ in Eq at [20] Sackville AJA at [21] Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed. (2) Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: RESTITUTION - appellant paid moneys to respondent - claim to recover as paid under a mistake of fact or for total failure of consideration-alleged paid under an agreement for transfer by respondent of an interest in a restaurant business - agreement alleged to have been made by agent - agency and agreement denied - respondent used moneys to discharge liabilities - whether unjust for respondent to retain payment Cases Cited: Attorney-General for Ceylon v Silva [1953] AC 461 at 479 Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1988] HCA 17; (1988) 164 CLR 662 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48; (1992) 175 CLR 353 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12; [1991] 2 AC 548 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451 Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd [2001] HCA 68; (2001) 208 CLR 516 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ambrika Prasad (Appellant) Selvey Sangha (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A R R Vincent (Appellant) S J Harben SC (Respondent) Solicitors: Smythe Wozniak Legal, St Marys (Appellant) Mason Lawyers, Newcastle (Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2009/332345 Decision under appeal Citation: Prasad v Sangha Date of Decision: 2011-03-31 00:00:00 Before: Delaney DCJ File Number(s): DC 80 of 2009
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