Legal Research
Cases
Campbell v Turner

Campbell v Turner

Case [2007] QSC 331 13 November 2007

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campbell v Turner & Ors [2007] QSC 331

PARTIES:

WAYNE ALEXANDER CAMPBELL and MARY-ANNE MONICA CAMPBELL
(plaintiffs)

v

LIONEL JOSEPH JAMES TURNER and ELSIE EDITH TURNER
(first defendants)
BOHLE GRAZING PTY LTD (ACN 010 552 762)
(second defendant)
HERBERT SAMUEL TURNER
(third defendant)
LYNDEL ISABEL OWENS
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO:

No 97 of 2004 (Cairns)

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

21-25 May 2007

HEARD AT:
JUDGE:

Supreme Court, Cairns

Wilson J

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – ILLEGAL AND VOID CONTRACTS – CONTRACTS ILLEGAL BY STATUTE – PARTICULAR STATUTES – the first defendants owned a large tract of land which they intended to subdivide – the plaintiffs entered into a deed with the defendants which purported to transfer one of the proposed lots to the plaintiffs for $30,000 – whether the transaction amounted to a sale – whether the deed was void by virtue of s 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) – whether the deed was void in whole or in part

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EQUITABLE ESTATES AND INTERESTS – CREATION – the plaintiffs had conversations with the third defendant as to the possibility of their purchasing a lot in a subdivision the first defendants intended to create – the plaintiffs occupied and improved the proposed lot, and ran a bus business from the proposed lot, with the first defendants’ knowledge – the plaintiffs entered into a deed with the defendants which purported to transfer the proposed lot to the plaintiffs for $30,000 – whether the conduct of the defendants created an equity of expectation – whether equities of expectation could arise out of a void deed – discussion of the content of any equities of expectation that arose

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EQUITABLE ESTATES AND INTERESTS – GENERALLY – OTHER MATTERS – equity of expectation arose that the plaintiffs would obtain title to the proposed lot in exchange for $30,000, and if the proposed subdivision could not be completed the $30,000 would be returned immediately – the proposed subdivision could not go ahead – the $30,000 was not returned – what remedy is appropriate to do justice in the circumstances

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – OTHER MATTERS – the conduct of the first defendants created equities of expectation which were not fulfilled – whether the conduct of the third and fourth defendants is such as to make them accessorily liable

Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) (as at 21 March 1990), s 8

Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244, applied
Brew v Whitlock [No 2] [1967] VR 803, cited
Chalmers v Pardoe [1963] 1 WLR 677, cited
Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242, cited
Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179, cited
Day Ford Pty Ltd v Sciacca [1990] 2 Qd R 209, followed
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1976]…

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 Campbell v Turner

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Turner [2007] QSC 331
Case: [2007] QSC 331
Decision Date: 13 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in this case sought to enforce a deed that purported to transfer ownership of a proposed lot to them for a purchase price of $30,000. The defendants, who owned the land, argued that the deed was void because it contravened statutory provisions, and that they were not liable for any equity of expectation the plaintiffs claimed to have accrued. The defendants also argued that any equity of expectation was unenforceable. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court had to decide whether the deed was a sale that contravened s 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld). The court had to determine whether the deed was void in whole or in part, and whether the plaintiffs had any equities of expectation that could be enforced. The court also had to decide whether the third and fourth defendants could be held accessorily liable for any breach of equity of expectation.

The court found that the deed was a sale, and therefore void in part, as it contravened s 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld). The court held that the plaintiffs had an equity of expectation that they would obtain title to the lot in exchange for $30,000, and if the proposed subdivision could not be completed, the $30,000 would be returned immediately. The court found that the first and third defendants created the equity of expectation, but the fourth defendant did not. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to be compensated for the equity of expectation, but not for any other loss. The court ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the $30,000 they had paid, plus interest.

Orders