Candoora No 19 Pty Ltd v Freixenet Australasia Pty Ltd (No 2)

The case of Candoora No 19 Pty Ltd v Freixenet Australasia Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties over the valuation of certain vineyard land. The contractual agreement between the parties included a mechanism for determining the value of the property, which involved the appointment of a valuer by each party and the selection of a third valuer by those two. The original valuation process had resulted in a certificate that was set aside by the court as it was found not to be in accordance with the contract. The court was required to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the re-valuation of the property and whether the original valuation procedure should be reinstated.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the valuation certificate should be remitted to the original valuer or whether a new valuer should be appointed. The court had to consider the principles applicable to contractual valuation procedures and decide on the appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the contractual terms. The court also had to determine whether the contractual valuation procedure should be recommenced and if so, what steps should be taken to ensure a binding valuation for the parties.

The court found that the original valuation certificate was not in accordance with the terms of the contract and thus was not binding on the parties. The court held that the contractual valuation procedure should be recommenced, and a new valuer should be appointed. The court outlined the principles to be applied in such circumstances, including the need for the valuer to be independent and impartial and for the valuation to be conducted in accordance with the contractual terms. The court emphasised that the recommencement of the valuation procedure was necessary to ensure a binding valuation for the parties.

The court ordered that the contractual valuation procedure be recommenced and that a new valuer be appointed. The court further ordered that the new valuer be appointed by agreement of the parties or, failing agreement, by the court. The court also ordered that the new valuer be required to conduct the valuation in accordance with the contractual terms and that the resulting valuation certificate be binding on the parties.