Beynon v Wongala Holdings - [1999] NSWCA 66

Reported Decision: (1999) NSW ConvR 55-896

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: Beynon v Wongala Holdings [1999] NSWCA 66

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40019/98

HEARING DATE(S): 19 November 1998

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 1999

PARTIES :

Beynon & Anor v Wongala Holdings Pty Limited & Anor.

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 16; Powell JA at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : ED 5914/92

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Cohen J

COUNSEL: Appellant: R McDOugall QC/B Green;
First respondent: S. Rares SC/S. Kaur-Bains
Second respondent: B. Skinner
Third respondent: D. Davies SC.

SOLICITORS: Appellant: Barnetts.
First respondent: Jackson Smith.
Second respondent: K C Hall.
Third respondent: Phillips Fox.

CATCHWORDS: Conveyancing - misdescription of land on face of contract - misdescription of land on s.149 Certificate under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - misdescription of title within s.127 Real Property Act.

ACTS CITED: Conveyancing Act (NSW) 1919
Real Property Act (NSW) 1900
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979.

CASES CITED:
Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v Butler (1885) LR 15 QBD 261.
Swindle v Knibb (1929) 29 SR 325.
Howe v Smith (1884) LR 27 Ch.D 89
In re Hargreaves & Thompson's Contract (1886) LR 32 Ch.D 454.
Bennett v Stuart (1927) 27 SR 317.
Zsadony v Pizer [1955] VLR 496.
Maralinga Pty. Limited v Major Enterprises Pty Limited [1972] 2 NSWLR 101.
Lucas & Tait Pty. Limited v Victoria Securities Limited [1973] 2 NSWLR 268.
Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Pty Limited [1973] 2 NSWLR 713.
Pratt v Hawkins (1991) 32 NSWLR 319.
James Macara Limited v Barclay [1945] 1KB 148.
Everett v Ribbands [1952] 2 QB 198.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co. [1969] 1 Ch. 93.
CBS Productions Pty. Limited v O'Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601.
American Home Assurance Co. v Ampol Refineries Limited (1987) 18 NSWLR 13.
Issa v Berisha [1981] 1 NSWLR 261.
Market Terminal Pty. Limited v Dominion Insurance Co. of Australia [1982] 1 NSWLR 105.

DECISION: Appeal dismisssed with costs; All three cross-appeals dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40019/98
MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
POWELL JA
25 MARCH 1999

BEYNON & ANOR v WONGALA HOLDINGS Pty Limited & ANOR

JUDGMENT
1 MEAGHER JA: This is an appeal from a decision of Cohen J in a conveyancing matter. Wongala Holdings Pty Limited was the vendor of certain rural land to the appellants Mr and Mrs Benyon. The vendor claimed damages principally from the purchaser and to a lesser extent from the Registrar General, the second respondent, and a firm of solicitors, the third respondents. The plaintiff was successful on nearly every point before Cohen J, and I must say that I think His Honour was correct. 2 The sale was of two adjacent properties, one called “Inglebar Homestead”, the other “Inglebar North.” Both were to some extent misdescribed in the contract of sale. As far as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beynon v Wongala Holdings and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWCA 66
Decision Date: 25 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between Beynon and Wongala Holdings concerning the sale of land. The core of the disagreement revolved around alleged misdescriptions of the property, which formed the basis of the contractual agreement and subsequent title documentation.

The Court was tasked with determining whether the misdescriptions of the land, as they appeared on the face of the contract, within a Section 149 Certificate issued under the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979* (NSW), and within the title particulars under Section 127 of the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW), rendered the contract void or otherwise unenforceable. This involved an examination of the legal effect of such misdescriptions on the validity of the sale.

The Court's reasoning, as delivered by Meagher, Sheller and Powell JJA, focused on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and contractual principles. The judges analysed the nature and significance of the alleged misdescriptions in the context of the overall transaction and the intention of the parties. The Court ultimately found that the misdescriptions did not vitiate the contract or the title.

Consequently, the appeal lodged by Beynon was dismissed with costs. Similarly, all three cross-appeals filed by Wongala Holdings were also dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismisssed with costs; All three cross-appeals dismissed with costs

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.

CITATION:	Beynon v Wongala Holdings [1999] NSWCA 66
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40019/98
HEARING DATE(S):	19 November 1998
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 March 1999
PARTIES :	Beynon & Anor v Wongala Holdings Pty Limited & Anor.
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 16; Powell JA at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	ED 5914/92
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Cohen J

COUNSEL:	Appellant: R McDOugall QC/B Green; First respondent: S. Rares SC/S. Kaur-Bains Second respondent: B. Skinner Third respondent: D. Davies SC.
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: Barnetts. First respondent: Jackson Smith. Second respondent: K C Hall. Third respondent: Phillips Fox.
CATCHWORDS:	Conveyancing - misdescription of land on face of contract - misdescription of land on s.149 Certificate under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - misdescription of title within s.127 Real Property Act.
ACTS CITED:	Conveyancing Act (NSW) 1919 Real Property Act (NSW) 1900 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979.
CASES CITED:	Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v Butler (1885) LR 15 QBD 261. Swindle v Knibb (1929) 29 SR 325. Howe v Smith (1884) LR 27 Ch.D 89 In re Hargreaves & Thompson's Contract (1886) LR 32 Ch.D 454. Bennett v Stuart (1927) 27 SR 317. Zsadony v Pizer [1955] VLR 496. Maralinga Pty. Limited v Major Enterprises Pty Limited [1972] 2 NSWLR 101. Lucas & Tait Pty. Limited v Victoria Securities Limited [1973] 2 NSWLR 268. Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Pty Limited [1973] 2 NSWLR 713. Pratt v Hawkins (1991) 32 NSWLR 319. James Macara Limited v Barclay [1945] 1KB 148. Everett v Ribbands [1952] 2 QB 198. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co. [1969] 1 Ch. 93. CBS Productions Pty. Limited v O'Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601. American Home Assurance Co. v Ampol Refineries Limited (1987) 18 NSWLR 13. Issa v Berisha [1981] 1 NSWLR 261. Market Terminal Pty. Limited v Dominion Insurance Co. of Australia [1982] 1 NSWLR 105.
DECISION:	Appeal dismisssed with costs; All three cross-appeals dismissed with costs