Burridge v Saville - [2023] QSC 244

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Burridge & Anor v Saville [2023] QSC 244

PARTIES:

Wade James Burridge

(first plaintiff)
and
Annabelle Julie Borges
(second plaintiff)

v
Julie May Saville

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 14608 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 September 2023

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

1. The answer to the separate questions are:

(a) was the Disclosure Statement ‘signed by the defendant’ within the meaning of section 206(3) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Unnecessary to decide

(b) was the Disclosure Statement ‘substantially complete’ within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Yes

(c) did the plaintiffs validly terminate the Contract pursuant to section 206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? No

2. I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONVEYANCING – BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND REMEDIES – PURCHASER’S REMEDIES – BREACH OF VENDOR’S STATUTORY DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where real estate agent prepared disclosure statement – where there is no committee, secretary, body corporate manager, administrative fund or sinking fund –where disclosure statement states “N/A” – where buyers terminate a contract under s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 – whether the disclosure statement is substantially complete within the meaning of s 206(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 – whether the buyers validly terminated the contract pursuant to s 206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, s 206
Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 483

Pazcuff Pty Ltd v Farmilo [2010] 2 Qd R 268
Menniti v Chan [2007] QSC 190
Menniti v Winn [2009] 2 Qd R 425

COUNSEL:

A Greinke for the plaintiffs

A Harding for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

K2 Law for the plaintiffs

Delaneys Lawyers for the defendant

On 26 June 2023, Davis J ordered, pursuant to r 483 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, that the following questions be determined separately from, and before, the final trial:
(a)was the Disclosure Statement ‘signed by the defendant’ within the meaning of section 206(3) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act)? (Separate Question 1)
(b)was the Disclosure Statement ‘substantially complete’ within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Act? (Separate Question 2)
(c)did the plaintiffs validly terminate the Contract pursuant to section 206(5) of the Act? (Separate Question 3)
The plaintiffs no longer press Separate Question 1. The parties agreed that it should be answered: unnecessary to decide.
The parties also agreed that an answer of “yes” to Separate Question 2 will mean the answer to Separate Question 3 is “no”, and vice versa.
For the reasons that follow, Separate Question 2 is answered “yes” and Separate Question 3 answered “no”.
What is a disclosure statement?
Section 206 of…

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 Burridge v Saville

Details

AGLC: Burridge v Saville [2023] QSC 244
Case: [2023] QSC 244
Decision Date: 3 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burridge v Saville is a case involving the dispute between the purchasers, Burridge, and the vendor, Saville, over the sale of a property. The dispute centred on the vendor's statutory disclosure obligations under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, specifically regarding the completeness of the disclosure statement. The real estate agent prepared the disclosure statement, which indicated “N/A” for several items due to the absence of a committee, secretary, body corporate manager, administrative fund, or sinking fund. The purchasers terminated the contract under section 206 of the Act, asserting that the disclosure statement was not substantially complete.

The primary legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the disclosure statement was 'substantially complete' as required by section 206(4) of the Act, and if the purchasers validly terminated the contract under section 206(5). The court also needed to determine if the disclosure statement was 'signed by the defendant' within the meaning of section 206(3) of the Act, although this was ultimately deemed unnecessary to decide. The court examined the statutory provisions and the circumstances under which the disclosure statement was prepared and signed to ascertain the completeness and validity of the termination.

The court concluded that the disclosure statement was substantially complete, as the information provided was accurate given the specific circumstances of the property. However, the court found that the purchasers did not validly terminate the contract. The reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the specific wording used in the disclosure statement. The court determined that while the disclosure statement was complete, the manner in which the contract was terminated did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the termination was not valid.

In conclusion, the court provided detailed answers to the separate questions posed, finding that the disclosure statement was substantially complete but that the purchasers did not validly terminate the contract. The court will hear the parties on costs, leaving the final determination of costs to a subsequent hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The answer to the separate questions are:

(a) was the Disclosure Statement ‘signed by the defendant’ within the meaning of section 206(3) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Unnecessary to decide

(b) was the Disclosure Statement ‘substantially complete’ within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Yes

(c) did the plaintiffs validly terminate the Contract pursuant to section 206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? No

2. I will hear the parties on 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:	Burridge & Anor v Saville [2023] QSC 244
PARTIES:	Wade James Burridge (first plaintiff) and Annabelle Julie Borges (second plaintiff) v Julie May Saville (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 14608 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 September 2023
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDER:	1. The answer to the separate questions are: (a) was the Disclosure Statement ‘signed by the defendant’ within the meaning of section 206(3) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Unnecessary to decide (b) was the Disclosure Statement ‘substantially complete’ within the meaning of section 206(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997? Yes (c) *did the plaintiffs validly terminate the Contract pursuant to section 206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act* 1997? No 2. I will hear the parties on costs.**
CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING – BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND REMEDIES – PURCHASER’S REMEDIES – BREACH OF VENDOR’S STATUTORY DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where real estate agent prepared disclosure statement – where there is no committee, secretary, body corporate manager, administrative fund or sinking fund –where disclosure statement states “N/A” – where buyers terminate a contract under s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 – whether the disclosure statement is substantially complete within the meaning of s 206(4) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 – whether the buyers validly terminated the contract pursuant to s 206(5) of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, s 206 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 483 Pazcuff Pty Ltd v Farmilo [2010] 2 Qd R 268 Menniti v Chan [2007] QSC 190 Menniti v Winn [2009] 2 Qd R 425
COUNSEL:	A Greinke for the plaintiffs A Harding for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	K2 Law for the plaintiffs Delaneys Lawyers for the defendant