Leading High Court Cases

Question 1

Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth (1954) — principle?

Accepted Answer

Consideration requires a bargain: the promise must be given in return for the act or promise, not merely as a conditional gift. (Source: (1954) 92 CLR 424)

Question 2

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA (2002) — held?

Accepted Answer

Intention to create legal relations is assessed objectively from all the circumstances; reliance on presumptions (e.g. for religious or domestic arrangements) should be avoided. (Source: (2002) 209 CLR 95)

Question 3

Masters v Cameron (1954) — significance?

Accepted Answer

Identified three categories of agreements "subject to contract" to decide whether the parties intended to be immediately bound. (Source: (1954) 91 CLR 353)

Question 4

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) — held?

Accepted Answer

Equitable (promissory) estoppel can found a cause of action where the defendant induced an assumption, knew of the plaintiff's detrimental reliance, and it would be unconscionable to resile. (Source: (1988) 164 CLR 387)

Question 5

Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) — doctrine?

Accepted Answer

Unconscionable dealing: equity will intervene where a stronger party takes unfair advantage of another's special disadvantage of which it knew or ought to have known. (Source: (1983) 151 CLR 447)

Question 6

Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) — relevance?

Accepted Answer

Leading case on implied terms (adopting the BP Refinery criteria), use of surrounding circumstances in construction, and frustration. (Source: (1982) 149 CLR 337)

1.Australian Woollen Mills v Commonwealth (1954) — principle?

2.Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA (2002) — held?

3.Masters v Cameron (1954) — significance?

4.Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) — held?

5.Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) — doctrine?

6.Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) — relevance?