Braidotti & Anor v Queensland City Properties Limited

This matter concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellants, Augusto Braidotti and another, appealed a judgment that declared their contract with the respondent, Queensland City Properties Limited, had been rescinded by the respondent. The primary judge, McPherson J, had found that the contract was an instalment contract under section 71 of the Property Law Act, and that the vendor appellants had repudiated the contract by purporting to rescind it without first providing notice of intention as required by section 72 of the Act.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the contract was an instalment contract within the meaning of section 71 of the Property Law Act, and whether the vendor appellants' actions constituted a repudiation of the contract, thereby entitling the respondent to rescind. The primary judge had assumed, in favour of the appellants, that the respondent had defaulted on its completion obligations by 26 July 1989, a fact necessary for the application of section 72. The decision at first instance, affirmed by the Full Court, led to the respondent being entitled to damages yet to be assessed.

The court was required to consider clause 42 of the contract, which stipulated that the purchaser would pay the vendors $80 per week to maintain the property for farming purposes until the contract ended. The vendors were farmers, and the purchasers were developers, and this maintenance provision was considered to be of no value to the purchasers. The primary judge's reasoning, endorsed by the Full Court, hinged on this clause establishing the contract as an instalment contract, and the subsequent purported rescission by the vendors without the requisite notice under section 72 constituting a repudiation.