2XD owned the land the motel was operated on and leased it to 1XD, a Co co-owned by 2XD: [2]

2XC had assisted 2XD over the years, and came to assist with the motel: [13] - [17]

The arrangements (for 2XC to help at the motel, and to eventually purchase it from 2XD having paid a deposit) were informal and legally unclear - an arrangement defined by “uncertainty, if not confusion”: [24]

1XC (who was in a domestic partnership with 2XC) ran a separate business providing accomodation among other things. After a time 1XC obtained an EFTPOS machine to accept payments: [37] - [41]

2XD stopped payments to the XCs for their work at the motel, apparently planning to set those “non payments” against an eventual purchase price: [42]

Sometimes the 2XC used the EFTPOS machine for motel payments: [44]

This diverted funds away from the XDs’ motel bank account: [46]

In early 2020, 2XD decided they did not want to proceed with the sale: [47]

In around July 2020, the XDs forcibly evicted the XCs and commenced legal proceedings: [48], [49]

The dispute crystallised into arguments which parties owed what money, and why: [51]

Complexity arose from the messiness of the legal relationship: [52]

The XCs were not employees, nor did they have an “equitable lease”, nor were they agents, nor did any equitable relationship arise: [54] - [65], [92]

The Court found the parties had a loose, consensual arrangement whose terms were implied: [66]

The XCs claimed their deposit and the unpaid “non payments” for motel work; a total of ~$105K. The Court found no reason existed for payment not to be made and the XCs succeeded in their claim: [86]

The XDs claimed (among other things) ~$240K of payments made through the EFTPOS machine. There was no conclusive evidence about which payments related to the motel and which related to 1XC’s other business (noting sometimes guests would stay at 1XD’s premises if the motel was full). The Court considered the most fair outcome was to award around half the amount claimed to the XDs: [95] - [102]

A number of other small claims brought by the XDs failed, including because no fiduciary obligations arose between the parties: [103] - [112]

Orders were made that the XCs pay the XDs $132K, and the XDs pay the XCs $105K - a difference of around $27K: [113]

The Court invited submissions on costs but suggested an appropriate order may be that each party bear their own costs.

Without wishing to be flippant or disrespectful, each party might also bear their own regrets about failing to document their arrangement.

___

If you'd like to contact me please look for James d'Apice or Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite social media spot - I should pop up right away!