Topic – Stare Decisis and Private International Law
Facts –
Say-Dee was owned by Sadie and Dalida, who had no real estate experience. Farah was owned by Mr Elias who did have experience.
They entered into a joint venture to develop a house at Number 11, Burwood.
By the agreement, Say-Dee was responsible for finances while Farah did the sale, approvals etc
Profit was to be distributed equally between the two.
The approval was rejected for being too narrow so Mr Elias acquired the two adjoining properties, 13 and 15.
It was a common land and there were fiduciary duties owed to Say-Dee and so they sued saying that this was a breach because Mr Elias never told them about the problems with development.
The Court accepted that Mr Elias had actually told Say-Dee and invited them to purchase but they declined for financial reasons.
Issue – Is the doctrine of Stare Decisis applicable in private International Law?
Judgement –
Intermediate appellate courts and trial judges in Australia should not depart from decisions in intermediate appellate courts in another jurisdiction on the interpretation of uniform national legislation unless they are convinced that the interpretation is plainly wrong. The same principle applies to non-statutory law.
Mr Elias was permitted to purchase the other properties even though he had a fiduciary duty regarding property no. 11.
His duty of disclosure was upheld because he told them about the council and that they could buy properties 13 and 15 with him also.
Had he not told them, that would have been a breach, because here would have been no informed consent.
The High Court of Australia rejected the proposition that it was held on constructive trust for Say Dee – there was no reason that they could not pursue the development themselves.
