Tony Scully’s claim against Madeline Holland seeking AUD 1.2 million for consultancy advice on a building contract in Papua New Guinea failed because payment was conditional on funding being available. Justice Tahana described Ms Holland as being untruthful and lacking any credibility, but there was no evidence of any funding coming available for the proposed project.
There was evidence of Ms Holland’s subsequent involvement in a different Papua New Guinea project. Mr Scully suspected his unpaid work underpinned this different project, leaving him out in the cold.
The High Court was told discussions between the two started in late 2011. Mr Scully was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement in advance of work on an unidentified building project being promoted by Ms Holland.
He was director of a New Zealand based business: C-Style Homes. She claimed to be legal advisor/advisor to a Papua New Guinea organisation called Hela Cultural Foundation and also property development co-ordinator for a business called Getsmart Steel Kitset Homes of New Zealand. No such business existed in either New Zealand or Papua New Guinea.
Over the next five years, Ms Holland requested and obtained information from Mr Scully regarding costs for various housing types plus expected infrastructure costs. In 2012, the two met in Cairns, discussing in detail necessary project requirements.
After one year without any payment, Mr Scully pressed for a formal consultancy contract.
A contract was signed in 2013. Details were disputed.
Justice Tahana ruled the contract contained a special condition specifying no payment would be made to Mr Scully until ‘release of funding.’
Mr Scully was led to believe available funds were currently sitting in a Westpac account.
He later heard from a third party that these funds had been uplifted, used for a different project.
When he complained, Ms Holland cut off contact.
Justice Tahana said Ms Holland’s conduct was misleading, suggesting she had funding when she did not. She continued to mislead Mr Scully so he would continue to provide documents she could use elsewhere, Justice Tahana said.
Justice Tahana said it is more likely than not that Ms Holland was deliberately deceitful, making up a project that did not exist and misrepresenting that funds were available.
Email exchanges indicated Mr Scully took the commercial risk that he would not be paid if funding did not eventuate, Justice Tahana said.
There was no breach of contract, she ruled.
Payment was conditional on ‘release of funding.’ No funding was released.
Scully v. Holland – High Court (16.08.24)
24.198