Brightman v Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brightman & Ors v Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] QSC 150

PARTIES:

ADAM BRIGHTMAN

(first applicant)
AND

JODIE BRIGHTMAN

(second applicant)
AND

MARY MAGGIE MAE CRUZ

(third applicant)
AND

RAYMOND CAVITE CRUZ

(fourth applicant)
AND

CAMERON ROBERTS

(fifth applicant)
AND

REBECCA ANNING

(sixth applicant)
AND

ADRIANA EUGENIA HERNANDEZ SILVA

(seventh applicant)
AND

JARRAD GLENN BUNT

(eighth applicant)
AND

JESSICA LEE DEMCHENKO

(ninth applicant)
AND

DIANNE MARIA MASSEY

(tenth applicant)
AND

VISHENDRAN NAIDU

(eleventh applicant)
AND

B CORPORATION (QLD) PTY LTD
ACN 651 109 894

(twelfth applicant)
AND

GEORGE STANLEY NEWBOLD

(thirteenth applicant)
AND

BRENDA ZHOYA

(fourteenth applicant)
AND

MICHAELA ERIKA MORELAND

(fifteenth applicant)
AND

REMY ARRAN MORELAND

(sixteenth applicant)
AND

KRISTIE-LEE ANNING

(seventeenth applicant)
AND

DESMOND LAFFY

(eighteenth applicant)
AND

TRINA LAFFY

(nineteenth applicant)
AND

CORNELIA CHRISTINE DAY

(twentieth applicant)
AND

COLIN JAMES BURTON

(twenty-first applicant)
AND

PERRIE BURTON

(twenty-second applicant)
AND

SILVANA TRPESKA

(twenty-third applicant)

v
ROYAL PINES PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 118 164 999 ATF BRISBANE CREDITS TRUST

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 8832 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 July 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.       In respect of each of the contracts identified in the schedule to this order, it is declared that:

(a)     by reason of the implication in that contract (Contract) of a term requiring that each party co‑operate to allow the other party the benefit of the Contract, upon request by the purchaser under the Contract (Purchaser), the respondent is required, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, to permit access to the real property (Property) the subject of the Contract by a valuer appointed by the Purchaser so as to enable the valuer to provide advice to the Purchaser as to the value of the Property for the purpose of obtaining finance in advance of completion of the Contract;

(b)     the respondent has, despite request by the Purchaser, failed to permit and facilitate such access; and

(c)     the respondent is not entitled to call for completion of the Contract on 16 July 2024.

2.       In respect of each of the said contracts, the respondent is restrained from purporting to terminate that contract in reliance on failure by the Purchaser or Purchasers under that contract to settle on 16 July 2024.

3.       The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – TERMS ESSENTIAL TO ENABLE PERFORMANCE – where there are contracts for the sale of apartments “off the plan” – where each contract contemplates the buyer having a financier and where the contract contemplated that finance would be required for the buyer to perform the contract – where the settlement date is set by the contract 14 days after a notice by the seller – where…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brightman v Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
[2024] QSC 150
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Brightman v Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd (No 2), the dispute involved several buyers who had entered into contracts for the sale of apartments "off the plan" with the respondent, Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd. The buyers sought declarations and injunctions regarding the enforcement of the contracts, specifically focusing on the implied term requiring cooperation in enabling the buyers to obtain finance by permitting their valuers to inspect the apartments. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether there was an implied term in the contracts that required the sellers to facilitate the buyers' valuers inspecting the apartments to obtain finance. The buyers argued that such a term was implied given the nature of "off the plan" sales and the reliance on finance to complete the purchase. The court had to determine if the sellers' refusal to allow the inspections breached this implied term and if the sellers could call for completion of the contracts.

The court held that an implied term requiring cooperation to enable the buyers to obtain finance was present in the contracts. This term mandated that the sellers permit the buyers' valuers to inspect the apartments upon request. The sellers' failure to allow the inspections for a week, coupled with construction works preventing access, constituted a breach of the implied term. The court found that the sellers were not entitled to call for completion of the contracts and restrained them from terminating the contracts based on the buyers' failure to settle on the specified date. The court also ordered the sellers to pay the buyers' costs.

The orders of the court declared that the sellers were required to permit the buyers' valuers to inspect the apartments to obtain finance and restrained the sellers from terminating the contracts or calling for completion based on the buyers' inability to settle on the specified date. The court further ordered the sellers to pay the buyers' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. In respect of each of the contracts identified in the schedule to this order, it is declared that:

(a) by reason of the implication in that contract (Contract) of a term requiring that each party co‑operate to allow the other party the benefit of the Contract, upon request by the purchaser under the Contract (Purchaser), the respondent is required, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, to permit access to the real property (Property) the subject of the Contract by a valuer appointed by the Purchaser so as to enable the valuer to provide advice to the Purchaser as to the value of the Property for the purpose of obtaining finance in advance of completion of the Contract;

(b) the respondent has, despite request by the Purchaser, failed to permit and facilitate such access; and

(c) the respondent is not entitled to call for completion of the Contract on 16 July 2024.

2. In respect of each of the said contracts, the respondent is restrained from purporting to terminate that contract in reliance on failure by the Purchaser or Purchasers under that contract to settle on 16 July 2024.

3. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the proceeding.

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.