Legal Research
Cases
Buildev Development v PIC Sales

Buildev Development v PIC Sales

Case [2003] NSWSC 1245 12 December 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2004) NSW ConvR 56-087

Supreme Court

CITATION: Buildev Development v PIC Sales [2003] NSWSC 1245

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

DECISION: Caveat not extended

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS - option to purchase - contractual right to extend time for exercise of option to purchase - whether strict compliance with conditions for exercise of contractual power required - CONTRACTS - substantial performance - field of operation - CONVEYANCING - LAND UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM - caveats against dealings - option to purchase confers caveatable interest - EQUITY - relief against forfeiture - when available concerning loss of an option - what is a forfeiture

CASES CITED: Arcos Ltd v E A Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
Bolton v Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009
Corio Guarantee Corporation Ltd v McCallum (1956) VLR 755
Forder v Cemcorp Pty Ltd (2001) 51 NSWLR 486
Gilbert J McCaul (Aust) Pty Ltd v Pitt Club Ltd (1957) 59 SR(NSW) 122
Ex parte Graves (1905) 7 Gaz LR 318
H Dakin & Co Ltd v Lee [1916] 1 KB 566
Re Henderson's Caveat [1998] 1 QdR 632
Hoenig v Isaacs (1952) 2 All ER 176
Jessica Holdings Pty Ltd v Anglican Property Trust Diocese of Sydney (1992) 27 NSWLR 140
Laybutt v Amoco Australia Pty Ltd (1974) 132 CLR 57
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286
Melacare Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Daley Investments Pty Ltd (1995) 6 BPR [97535]
Re McKean's Caveat [1988] 1 QdR 524
Quek v Beggs (1990) 5 BPR 11,761
Sarge Pty Ltd v Cazihaven Homes Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 658
Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
Tonitto v Bassal (1992) 28 NSWLR 564
Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v Peters (1960) 102 CLR 537
United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904
Xcel Rural Properties Pty Ltd v South Creek Dairy Pty Ltd (2002) 10 BPR [97957]

PARTIES :
Buildev Development Pty Ltd - Plaintiff
PIC Sales Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6011/03

COUNSEL: A Lo Surdo - Plaintiff
R D Wilson - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Trisley Kilmurray - Plaintiff
Stacks the Law Firm Forster - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER 2003 – Revised 18 December 2003

6011/03 BUILDEV DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD v PIC SALES PTY LTD

JUDGMENT – Ex Tempore (On application to extend caveat)

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to extend a caveat. The caveator was the Grantee of an option to acquire the land in question.

2 That option is one which was granted by a Deed entered on 14 April 2003. The Deed of Option made provision in Clause 3 for the option being exercised before 4pm on 22 October 2003.

“(a) by delivery of written notice of exercise of option and a bank cheque for $102,000 by…

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.

Continue reading Buildev Development v PIC Sales

Details

AGLC: Buildev Development v PIC Sales [2003] NSWSC 1245
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1245
Decision Date: 12 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Buildev Development and PIC Sales, focusing on an option to purchase real property. The parties were before the Federal Court of Australia. The core issue revolved around whether strict compliance with the conditions for exercising an option to purchase was necessary, and whether the option to purchase constituted a caveatable interest under the Torrens system. Additionally, the court had to determine if equitable relief against forfeiture was available in the context of the loss of an option.

The court examined whether the option to purchase required strict adherence to the specified conditions or if substantial performance was sufficient. It also assessed the nature of the option to purchase and whether it conferred a caveatable interest. Furthermore, the court explored the concept of forfeiture in the context of losing an option and the circumstances under which equitable relief could be granted to prevent such forfeiture.

The court concluded that strict compliance with the conditions for exercising the option was not required, and that substantial performance was sufficient. The option to purchase was deemed to confer a caveatable interest, and the court found that equitable relief against forfeiture was available when there was a loss of an option. The court ruled in favour of Buildev Development, allowing them to exercise the option despite non-compliance with certain conditions, and granted relief against forfeiture. The final orders were made in favour of Buildev Development, recognising their right to exercise the option and providing relief against the potential forfeiture of that right.

Orders