The High Court has followed up on the Alphapharm case by restating the supremacy of written agreements over oral agreements.
In Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Codd; Equusco [2004] HCA 55, the plaintiff was a financier to investors in a tax driven aquaculture project. Notwithstanding clearly drawn written loan agreements for about $3.2M the investors refused to repay their loans on the basis of alleged oral agreements that the loans were "limited recourse".
The joint majority judgment found:
"The respondents each having executed a loan agreement, each is bound by it. Having executed the document, and not having been induced to do so by fraud, mistake, or misrepresentation, the respondents cannot now be heard to say that they are not bound by the agreement recorded in it. The parol evidence rule, the limited operation of the defence of non est factum and the development of the equitable remedy of rectification, all proceed from the premise that a party executing a written agreement is bound by it. Yet fundamental to the respondents' case that the operative agreements between the parties were wholly oral, and reached earlier than the execution of the written agreements, was the proposition that the written agreements subsequently executed not only may be ignored, they must be. That is not so. Having executed the agreement, each respondent is bound by it unless able to rely on a defence of non est factum, or able to have it rectified. The respondents attempted neither. "
