Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 159 Hearing dates: 7 May 2019 Date of orders: 02 July 2019 Decision date: 02 July 2019 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1], Leeming JA at [2], Payne JA at [3] Decision: (1) Notice of motion seeking leave to amend the notice of appeal dated 3 May 2019 dismissed.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
(3) Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: LAND LAW – conveyancing – options – call options – construction – notice of exercise of option able to be given to grantor’s conveyancer – whether option validly exercised - whether notice to grantee required that conveyancer no longer retained by grantor – whether requirement that conveyancer be retained at the time of the exercise of the option Legislation Cited: Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), s 7
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 170(1)(b)
Uniform Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.11Cases Cited: Austra Tanks Pty Ltd v Running [1982] 2 NSWLR 840
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99; [1973] HCA 36
Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; [1998] HCA 16
Comdox v Robins [2009] NSWSC 367
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33
Hagerty v Hills Central Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 200
HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Hartnett [2016] NSWCA 342
Josland v Mullaley Properties Pty Ltd (1993) 6 BPR 13,285
Ma v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1452
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571; [1982] HCA 52
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37
Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corp (1997) 47 NSWLR 631
Pratt & Anor v Hawkins (No 2) (1991) NSW ConvR 55-592
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35
Tonitto v Bassal (1992) 28 NSWLR 564
Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429; [1968] HCA 8
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; 77 ALJR 1598Texts Cited: JD Heydon QC, Heydon on Contract (Thomson Reuters, 2019) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Iraklis Gary Coplin (Appellant)
Al Maha Pty Ltd (ACN 118 230 087) (First Respondent)
Sophia Norma Bechara (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
P Gray SC, B Oliak (Appellant)
T M Faulkner SC, A F Garsia (Respondents)
De Pasquale Lawyers (Appellant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2018/00356638 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity – Real Property List
- Citation:
- [2018] NSWSC 1623
- Date of Decision:
- 24 October 2018
- Before:
- Kunc J
- File Number(s):
- 2018/00039242
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant (as grantor) and the first respondent (as grantee) entered into a deed styled “The Put and Call Option Agreement” (“Option Deed”) in relation to a property in St…
Continue reading Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 159
- Case
- [2019] NSWCA 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd* concerned the validity of the exercise of a call option for land. The appellant, Coplin, sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge, which had found that the option had not been validly exercised. The respondents were Al Maha Pty Ltd and others.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the notice of exercise of the call option was validly given to the grantor's conveyancer, and whether the option remained validly exercisable even if the conveyancer no longer retained by the grantor at the time of exercise. The court also considered whether the option agreement required the conveyancer to be retained by the grantor at the precise moment the option was exercised.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Macfarlan, Leeming and Payne JJA, reasoned that the option agreement stipulated that notice of exercise could be given to the grantor's conveyancer. The court found that the agreement did not require the conveyancer to be retained by the grantor at the time of the exercise of the option, nor did it require the conveyancer to have continued to act for the grantor at that specific point. The court concluded that the notice was validly given to the conveyancer, and therefore the option had been validly exercised.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and refused leave to amend the notice of appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the notice of exercise of the call option was validly given to the grantor's conveyancer, and whether the option remained validly exercisable even if the conveyancer no longer retained by the grantor at the time of exercise. The court also considered whether the option agreement required the conveyancer to be retained by the grantor at the precise moment the option was exercised.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Macfarlan, Leeming and Payne JJA, reasoned that the option agreement stipulated that notice of exercise could be given to the grantor's conveyancer. The court found that the agreement did not require the conveyancer to be retained by the grantor at the time of the exercise of the option, nor did it require the conveyancer to have continued to act for the grantor at that specific point. The court concluded that the notice was validly given to the conveyancer, and therefore the option had been validly exercised.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and refused leave to amend the notice of appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Notice of motion seeking leave to amend the notice of appeal dated 3 May 2019 dismissed.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
(3) Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs as agreed or assessed.
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.