Auxil Pty Ltd v Terranova

Case [2009] WASCA 163


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   AUXIL PTY LTD -v- TERRANOVA [2009] WASCA 163

CORAM:   BUSS JA

MILLER JA
NEWNES JA

HEARD:   18 MAY 2009

DELIVERED          :   11 SEPTEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S:   CACV 26 of 2008

BETWEEN:   AUXIL PTY LTD

First Appellant

THEODORUS CORNELIUS OUD
Second Appellant

AND

SALVATORE TERRANOVA
ANGELINA TERRANOVA
First Respondents

CITYZONE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

RODNEY BOYLE
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :GOETZE DCJ

Citation  :TERRANOVA & ANOR -v- AUXIL PTY LTD & ORS [2008] WADC 29

File No  :CIV 1297 of 2003

Catchwords:

Contract - Contract to purchase land - Misrepresentation by agent as to value of purchaser's offer - Claim by vendor for difference between contract price and market value of land - Whether unaccepted offers to purchase land admissible as direct evidence of market value of that land - Whether unaccepted offer admissible for other purposes in connection with value of land - Relevant principles

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant               :     Mr G R Hancy

Second Appellant          :     Mr G R Hancy

First Respondents         :     Mr T H Offer

Second Respondent      :     Mr J R Birman

Third Respondent          :     No appearance

Solicitors:

First Appellant               :     Clavey Legal

Second Appellant          :     Clavey Legal

First Respondents         :     Holborn Lenhoff Massey

Second Respondent      :     Birman & Ride

Third Respondent          :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd v The State of South Australia [2001] SASC 381

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717

Baiyai Pty Ltd v Guy [2009] NSWCA 65

Beale v Trinkler [2008] NSWSC 347

Benzlaw & Associates Pty Ltd v Medi‑Aid Centre Foundation Ltd [2007] QSC 233

Blefari v Minister (1962) 8 LGRA 1

Bone v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1972] 2 NSWLR 651

Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1988) 82 ALR 499

Chen v Karandonis [2002] NSWCA 412

Cordelia Holdings Pty Ltd v Newkey Investments Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 48

Crabtree‑Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising & Addressing Co Pty Ltd [1975] 133 CLR 72

Electricity Trust of South Australia v O'Leary (1986) 42 SASR 26

Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 189; (2004) 140 FCR 17

Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480

Goold v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 42 FCR 51

Gregory v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 123 CLR 547

Harris v Municipal Council of Sydney (1910) 10 SR (NSW) 860

Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 1) (1995) 62 FCR 1

HML v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334

Hustlers Pty Ltd v The Valuer-General (1967) 14 LGRA 269

In Marriage of Smith (1991) 102 FLR 359

IVI Pty Ltd v Baycrown Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 205

James Patrick & Co Pty Ltd v The Minister of State for the Navy [1944] ALR 254

Continue reading Auxil Pty Ltd v Terranova

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Auxil Pty Ltd v Terranova [2009] WASCA 163
Case
[2009] WASCA 163
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Auxil Pty Ltd was the plaintiff and Terranova was the defendant in a case heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on a contract to purchase land, where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had misrepresented the value of their offer. The plaintiff sought the difference between the contract price and the market value of the land, arguing that the misrepresentation led to a lower sale price than the land's true worth.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether unaccepted offers to purchase the land could be used as direct evidence of the market value of the land, and whether such unaccepted offers could be admitted for other purposes related to the value of the land. The court needed to establish the relevant principles governing the admissibility of unaccepted offers in such contexts.

The court examined the principles surrounding the admissibility of unaccepted offers in real estate transactions. It concluded that while unaccepted offers could not be used as direct evidence of market value, they could be considered for other purposes related to the value of the land. The court found that the unaccepted offers were admissible to provide context and understanding of the market conditions and the reasonable expectations regarding the property's value. Based on this reasoning, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the lower court were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.