Carter v Schmitt - [2003] NSWSC 1166

CITATION: Carter v Schmitt & Ors [2003] NSWSC 1166

HEARING DATE(S): 30 October 2003, 10 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ at 1

DECISION: See para 71

CATCHWORDS: Option to renew - Agricultural Tenancy - whether correctly exercised

LEGISLATION CITED: Agricultural Tenancies Act 1990
Agricultural Tenancies Regulation 2001

CASES CITED: Ballas v Theophilos (No 2) (1957) 98 CLR 193
Bava Holdings Pty Ltd v Pando Holdings Pty Ltd (1998) NSW Conv R 55-862
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115
Mannai Investments Co Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd 1997 AC 749
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Health Minders Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 673
Riltang Pty Ltd v L Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 625
Tonitto & Anor v Bassal & Ors (1992) 28 NSWLR 564

PARTIES :
Keith Carter v Schmitt & Ors

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4878/03

COUNSEL: (P) Mr Bradford
(D) Ms Bartush-Peek

SOLICITORS: (P) Booth, Brown, Samuels & Olney
(D) Long, Howland

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 10 December 2003

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff, Keith Carter, and his wife have owned a rural property known as "Maybrook", River Road, Geurie for a number of years. By an agreement of 4 November 1998 Mr Carter entered into a sharefarming agreement with John Francis Schmitt, his wife Margaret Rose Schmitt and their sons Andrew John and Mark Frederick. That agreement confers on the Schmitts an option to renew the agreement for a further three years subject to following a particular procedure and to certain conditions. The Schmitts, by their solicitors purported to exercise the option to renew but the plaintiff asserts that it was not validly exercised in that:

(a) the Schmitts did not follow the procedure specified in the agreement for exercising the option, and
(b) the Schmitts did not comply with all the conditions and agreements contained in the sharefarming agreement; substantial breaches were alleged

2. There have been many disputes between the parties. Investigating this latter aspect of alleged breaches is likely to involve a lengthy hearing on the facts. The parties agreed that certain preliminary issues should be resolved first, namely:

(1) Whether as a matter of construction the notice in the letter of 27 June 2003 (from the defendants solicitors to the plaintiff's solicitors) is capable of constituting a valid exercise of the option to renew the sharefarming agreement.

(2) Whether it was a permissible method of exercising the option to renew the sharefarming agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants for Long Howland (the defendants' solicitors) as agents for the defendants to give the written notice of exercise of the option to renew to Booth Brown Samuels & Olney (the plaintiff's solicitors).
(3) If the answer to question 2 is in the negative whether the plaintiff has waived or is estopped from asserting that the letter of 27 June 2003 could not be given by the solicitors for the defendants to the solicitors for the plaintiff.

3.…

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 Carter v Schmitt

Details

AGLC: Carter v Schmitt [2003] NSWSC 1166
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1166
Decision Date: 10 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Carter, the lessor, and Schmitt, the lessee, of an agricultural property. The dispute centred around the validity of an option to renew the lease which Schmitt had exercised, with Carter challenging the correctness of its exercise. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Schmitt had correctly exercised the option to renew the lease as per the terms stipulated in the lease agreement. The court needed to determine if the process followed by Schmitt met the criteria set out in the agreement and if there were any procedural errors that invalidated the exercise of the option. The secondary issue was whether the lease agreement contained any ambiguity that could have affected the exercise of the option to renew.

The court examined the lease agreement and the process followed by Schmitt to exercise the option. It was found that Schmitt had strictly adhered to the terms and conditions set out in the lease regarding the exercise of the option to renew. The court ruled that there were no procedural errors or ambiguities in the agreement that would have prevented Schmitt from correctly exercising the option. Consequently, the court determined that Schmitt had exercised the option to renew the lease in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement. The court ordered that the lease be renewed for the additional term as per Schmitt's exercise of the option.

Orders