This is an extract of our Sabemo Pvt Ltd V. North Sydney Municipal Council document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
SABEMO PVT LTD V. NORTH SYDNEY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FACTS The defendant Council owned land which it desired to have redeveloped - this was for the purpose of the redevelopment of the North Sydney Civic Centre. It invited the submission of redevelopment proposals and formally accepted the plaintiff's scheme. The acceptance of the scheme did not create any contract but the plaintiff, as the chosen developer, thereafter did a considerable amount of work in regard to the preparation of plans, and negotiation with relevant authorities and with the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant undertook lengthy negotiations regarding the lease of the land by the defendant to the plaintiff with a lease back of portion of the buildings to be erected. There were a number of matters outstanding, in regard to the lease, when the defendant decided to abandon the scheme. During the course of the work undertaken by the plaintiff it had been specifically agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the cost of working out one alternative should be borne equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. Except in that respect there had been no agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff anything for its trouble. Following the abandonment by the defendant of the scheme the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the expenditure undertaken by it in regard to the project. Work done by the plaintif: The model and mock-up for scheme 2 were themselves elaborately done. Furthermore the plaintiff had prepared in respect of stage 1 of that scheme not only sketch plans but detailed working drawings. These were tendered in evidence. There is a question with which I shall need to deal in the event that I find liability established of the reasonableness or otherwise of the plaintiff in proceeding as far as working drawings when development consent had not been obtained. The plaintiff was asked to comment on a number of matters listed in various paragraphs of a letter that proceeded for some six pages. Amongst other things detailed questions were asked about the lift service that would be provided. Request by the defendant: I have referred to the above letter at some length to indicate that the plaintiff, in carrying out at least some of the detailed work which it did, was doing so, not only with the defendant's knowledge, but at its request. Thus the defendant, before the interim development order was made on 21st July, 1972, required the plaintiff to plan the development in a very detailed way.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.