Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd - [2009] FCA 110

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 110
CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD, J S O'CONNOR HARRIS & CO and KENOSS PTY LIMITED
ACD 11 of 2009
STONE J
13 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY (VIDEO-LINKED TO CANBERRA)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

ACD 11 of 2009

BETWEEN:
CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:
CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
First Respondent

J S O'CONNOR HARRIS & CO
Second Respondent

KENOSS PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 FEBRUARY 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (VIDEO-LINKED TO CANBERRA)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The service of the notice of motion be dispensed with.
2.The notice of motion be made returnable instanter.
3.Otherwise the application in the notice of motion be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

ACD 11 of 2009

BETWEEN:
CANBERRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:
CANBERRA LAND DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
First Respondent

J S O'CONNOR HARRIS & CO
Second Respondent

KENOSS PTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE:

13 FEBRUARY 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY (VIDEO-LINKED TO CANBERRA)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me a notice of motion filed in the Australian Capital Territory Registry of this Court, pursuant to which the applicant seeks orders that the first respondent be restrained from instructing its solicitors, namely the second respondent, from taking any steps to deal with certain funds or to release them to any person. The funds referred to are proceeds of the sale of land at Gungahlin.
The dispute between the applicant and the respondents concerning the Gungahlin land was ventilated before Graham J in this Court over a number of days in 2008. On 30 January 2009, his Honour dismissed the application. The applicant was seeking an account of profits earned by the first respondent and others as well as declarations in relation to the land. The dispute arose out of a joint venture in which the applicant was the trustee of land for the joint venturers. It is not necessary for me to detail the facts which are amply canvassed in the judgment of Graham J; Canberra Residential Developments Pty Limited v Brendas (No5) [2009] FCA 34.
The land which was the subject of the joint venture had been subject to caveats preventing its sale. Following the issue of a lapsing notice, Higgins CJ of the ACT Supreme Court had ordered that those caveats be maintained, however, by agreement between the parties, the caveats were lifted to the extent necessary to allow parts of the land to be sold. This partial release was subject to undertakings given by the solicitors for the first defendant, (the second respondent in the present application) that the proceeds 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Canberra Land De... 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: [2009] FCA 110
Decision Date: 13 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd brought an application against Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The application sought an injunction and a declaration, among other things, regarding the construction of a residential development project. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a contract between the two parties, which was related to the construction of a residential development project. The court was required to determine the legal issues concerning the validity of the contract, the existence of a breach, and the appropriate remedies for such a breach.

The court examined the contract between the parties and found that it was valid and enforceable. The court held that the contract was clear in its terms and that both parties had entered into it voluntarily and with full understanding of its implications. The court further held that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to construct the residential development in accordance with the agreed terms. However, the court found that the applicant had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the breach and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to any damages or other remedies. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the notice of motion be made returnable instantly and that the service of the notice of motion be dispensed with. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought and the application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The service of the notice of motion be dispensed with.

2. The notice of motion be made returnable instanter.

3. Otherwise the application in the notice of motion be dismissed.

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

STONE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STONE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 11 of 2009

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY (VIDEO-LINKED TO CANBERRA)

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	13 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY (VIDEO-LINKED TO CANBERRA)