In the recent Supreme Court decision of May v Walker [2024] NSWSC 612, Justice Rees condemned the plaintiffs, Ms May and Mr Gibson as a pair of “rogues” who befriended and manipulated the defendant, Mr Walker, for the purpose of taking control of his land and ski lodge in Crackenback in the Snowy Mountains.

The judgment was scathing of the plaintiffs’ conduct both towards Mr Walker and during the proceedings. Of particular note, Justice Rees criticised the first plaintiff, Ms May, for signaling answers to the second plaintiff whilst he was being cross-examined and sarcastically “slow-clapping” the defendant on the conclusion of his evidence. Further, Rees J found that the second plaintiff, Mr Gibson created false invoices shortly before the proceedings commenced to corroborate the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The Facts

Mr Walker is the owner of 40 acres of land at Crackenback, a ten-minute drive from Thredbo. Mr Walker named his property “Winter Park”, from which he derived income by renting out the six-bedroom house located on the land during the snow season.

In January 2023, Mr Walker (82) met Ms May (44) on a bus from Cooma to Jindabyne. Ms May told Mr Walker that she was struggling to find accommodation in the area and Mr Walker invited her to live at Winter Park to help turn the property into a bed and breakfast. The Court noted that Mr Walker “had an eye for the ladies and Ms May was prepared to exploit that susceptibility”.

Following this chance meeting, the plaintiffs visited Mr Walker at Winter Park, where Ms May and Mr Walker exchanged emails. Justice Rees found Ms May’s emails to be effusive, including the use of phrases such as “You are an amazing man”, “Dean has so much respect for you”, “You are going to live your dream”, “You deserve to be happy and have the best” and even ending one email with “xx”.

An agreement was reached whereby the plaintiffs were to live rent free at Winter Park in exchange for their assistance with running and improving the premises. Mr Walker advised that the house needed to be available by July for a regular customer.

After the plaintiffs moved into Winter Park in February 2023, they commenced attempts to persuade Mr Walker to enter into a lease with them. These attempts took the form of several iterations of leases proposed to Mr Walker; who, as the Court found, signed none.

By July 2023 relations between the parties had soured. On 21 July 2023 Mr Walker emailed a notice to vacate to the plaintiffs.

The Proceedings

Initially, the plaintiffs sought interlocutory orders for possession of Winter Park and to sub-let and manage the property. The final relief sought was an order to enforce the 30-year lease said to be executed on 7 June 2023 and an order that Mr Walker not interfere with the plaintiffs or their guests right of quiet enjoyment.

By the end of the proceedings the plaintiffs instead sought damages for breach of lease, equitable compensation in respect of estoppel, compensation under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and quantum meruit for work done at Winter Park.

Court Decision

Issue 1 – Was there a lease?

Justice Rees stated that whether a contract was formed is to be objectively ascertained by asking whether a reasonable person would have understood from the text of a contractual document, the surrounding circumstances and the purpose and object of the transaction that the parties share a common intention to contract.

The plaintiffs had produced a Residential Tenancy Agreement with the defendant’s name printed as a witness to the signature of the second plaintiff. The defendant had not signed as landlord.

Justice Rees concluded that there was no agreed lease because:

1.    Mr Walker had not executed the lease;

2.    the point in time when Mr Walker was said to have agreed to the lease coincided with the time he raised concerns about the plaintiffs with third parties; and

3.    subsequent communication between the parties was inconsistent with the existence of a signed lease.

Issue 2 – Were representations made?

Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought compensation for detriment suffered as a consequence of representations made by Mr Walker giving rise to estoppel or losses suffered as a consequence of misleading and deceptive representations contrary to the ACL.

Justice Rees noted the principles governing representations in equity and under the ACL, particularly that:

The plaintiffs contended that the defendant made oral and written representations which induced them to believe that they had a valid lease. In particular, the plaintiffs relied upon a note handwritten by Ms May and provided to Mr Walker which set out the plaintiffs’ intentions for managing and residing at Winter Park. Mr Walker told the plaintiffs that he would consider the note. There was no evidence that Mr Walker agreed to its terms.

Justice Rees dismissed each of the alleged representations and noted that “a reasonable person in the couple’s position would have recognised that Mr Walker was unwilling to agree to such a (ridiculous) proposal, effectively giving his land to people he had just met on most uncertain terms and for a paltry return.”

Even if such representations were made, Rees J found that the plaintiffs did not suffer any detriment, as they enjoyed rent-free accommodation, expended minimal funds and collected approximately $20,000 from renting the property out.

Issue 3 – Quantum Meruit

Lastly, the plaintiffs sought quantum meruit for work done at Winter Park. However. Rees J found that the work was done “on the cheap” and in some cases actually caused property damage.

The plaintiffs’ claim for quantum meruit ultimately failed in circumstances where there was no element of injustice if Mr Walker failed to make restitution for the benefit (if any) he received from the work done.

Conclusion

Justice Rees’ decision in May v Walker [2024] NSWSC 612 was scathing of the two plaintiffs and the level of manipulation they used in an attempt to obtain a leasehold interest in Winter Park. The proceedings were dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.