Bradley v Trenerry

Gaudron and Hayne JJ heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria in *Bradley v Trenerry*. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause within a contract for the sale of land, specifically whether the purchaser was entitled to a refund of their deposit due to the vendor's alleged failure to provide vacant possession. The purchaser had paid a deposit and entered into a contract for the sale of a property. Subsequently, the purchaser sought to terminate the contract and recover the deposit, alleging that the vendor had not given vacant possession as required by the contract.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria was whether the vendor had breached the contract by failing to provide vacant possession. This required the court to consider the meaning of "vacant possession" in the context of the sale of land and to determine whether the circumstances at the time of settlement constituted a breach of that obligation. The court also had to consider the consequences of any such breach, including the purchaser's right to terminate the contract and recover the deposit.

The court reasoned that the obligation to give vacant possession meant that the vendor must deliver the property free from any person or thing that would prevent the purchaser from having immediate and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. In this instance, the court found that the presence of a tenant, who had a right to remain in possession under a lease agreement, meant that the vendor had failed to provide vacant possession. Consequently, the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract and recover the deposit paid.