Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay - [2013] QCA 125

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay & Anor [2013] QCA 125

PARTIES:

CAPRICE PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 156 054 821
(appellant)
v
JOHN LEONARD McLEAY &
JULIE ANNE McLEAY
(respondents)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12357 of 2012
SC No 9708 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Boddice and Jackson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CONVEYANCING – COMPLETION OF CONTRACT – TIME FOR COMPLETION – GENERALLY – where the time of day for settlement was agreed upon – where the seller was unable to complete on that hour for 20 minutes – whether buyer has an obligation to settle

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 62, s 69

Aussie Invest Corporation Pty Ltd v Pulcesia Pty Ltd (2005) 13 VR 168; [2005] VSC 362, considered
Beard v Wratislaw [1993] 2 Qd R 494, followed
Ex parte Robertson [1983] 1 Qd R 526, followed
Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385; [1989] HCA 51, followed
Ireland v Leigh [1982] Qd R 145, followed
Jeppesons Road Pty Ltd v Di Domenico & Anor[2005] QCA 391, followed
Lohar Corporation Pty Ltd v Dibu Pty Ltd (1976) 1 BPR 9177, cited
Lowe v Evans [1989] 1 Qd R 295, distinguished
Mullins v Kelly-Corbett[2010] QCA 354, followed
Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444; [1976] HCA 21, cited
Re Ronim Pty Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 172; [1998] QCA 444, considered

COUNSEL:

G D Sheahan for the appellant
A Duffy for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Henry Davis York for the appellant
Robinson & Robinson for the respondents

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jackson J and the orders proposed by his Honour.

BODDICE J: I have read the reasons for judgment of Jackson J. I agree with those reasons and the proposed orders.

JACKSON J: Generally, under a contract for the sale of land and specifically, under a contract in the standard form approved by the REIQ and the Queensland Law Society, 9th edition, the obligations of the seller and the buyer to complete the sale are “dependent, concurrent and reciprocal”[1] obligations. An equivalent formulation is “concurrent and mutually dependent obligations”[2].
[1]See Beard v Wratislaw [1993] 2 Qd R 494 at 502; Jeppesons Road Pty Ltd v Di Domenico [2005] QCA 391 at [21].
[2]See Foran v Wight [1989] HCA 51; (1989) 168 CLR 385 at 396, 417, 433, 450 and 455.

Thus, under cl 5.3 of the standard terms of contract it is provided that in exchange for payment of the balance price the seller must deliver to the buyer at settlement, inter alia, “any…

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 Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay 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: [2013] QCA 125
Decision Date: 24 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from the parties' disagreement over the completion time for a property settlement. The buyer, Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd, alleged that the seller, McLeay, failed to complete the settlement at the agreed time and therefore breached the contract.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the buyer had an obligation to proceed with the settlement even if the seller was delayed by 20 minutes. This issue hinged on the interpretation of the contract and the circumstances under which the time for completion was deemed essential. The court had to consider whether the delay was significant enough to constitute a breach of contract or if it fell within an acceptable margin of error.

The court found that the contract did not specify a precise time for completion, and the circumstances did not elevate the time to an essential term. The court held that the 20-minute delay did not amount to a breach of contract. The reasoning was based on the understanding that minor deviations from the agreed time do not typically justify the termination of the contract unless expressly stated as critical. The court also noted that the buyer had the opportunity to proceed with the settlement despite the delay, which further supported the conclusion that the delay was not material.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and direct the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual terms regarding time and the implications of minor deviations from agreed timelines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

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:	Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay & Anor [2013] QCA 125
PARTIES:	CAPRICE PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 156 054 821 (appellant) v JOHN LEONARD McLEAY & JULIE ANNE McLEAY (respondents)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 12357 of 2012 SC No 9708 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 May 2013
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Boddice and Jackson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING – COMPLETION OF CONTRACT – TIME FOR COMPLETION – GENERALLY – where the time of day for settlement was agreed upon – where the seller was unable to complete on that hour for 20 minutes – whether buyer has an obligation to settle Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 62, s 69 Aussie Invest Corporation Pty Ltd v Pulcesia Pty Ltd (2005) 13 VR 168; [2005] VSC 362, considered Beard v Wratislaw [1993] 2 Qd R 494, followed Ex parte Robertson [1983] 1 Qd R 526, followed Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385; [1989] HCA 51, followed Ireland v Leigh [1982] Qd R 145, followed Jeppesons Road Pty Ltd v Di Domenico & Anor[2005] QCA 391, followed Lohar Corporation Pty Ltd v Dibu Pty Ltd (1976) 1 BPR 9177, cited Lowe v Evans [1989] 1 Qd R 295, distinguished Mullins v Kelly-Corbett[2010] QCA 354, followed Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444; [1976] HCA 21, cited Re Ronim Pty Ltd [1992] 2 Qd R 172; [1998] QCA 444, considered
COUNSEL:	G D Sheahan for the appellant A Duffy for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Henry Davis York for the appellant Robinson & Robinson for the respondents