Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1] The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, [2] as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.[3]
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd |
Decided | 24 May 2007 |
Citation(s) | [2007] HCA 22, 230 CLR 89 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon, Crennan, JJ |
Case opinions | |
appeal allowed (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ) |
In relation to the doctrine of precedent, the High Court held that Australian intermediate appellate courts and trial judges are bound by earlier decisions of intermediate appellate courts when construing federal and uniform national legislation, as well as non-statutory law, unless convinced that the earlier decision was 'plainly wrong'.[4] It further held that lower courts in Australia must obey the 'seriously considered dicta' of a High Court majority.[5]
The decision also resolved in part the relationship between Barnes v Addy liability and the Torrens system; the court definitively stated that unjust enrichment is not the doctrinal basis for such claims.[6]