Corbett v Cousins - [2008] QDC 6

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Corbett v Cousins [2008] QDC 006
PARTIES:	Gregory James Corbett (Plaintiff) AND William James Cousins (Defendant)
FILE NOS:	6/06
DIVISION:	District Court of Queensland, Gympie
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Gympie District Court
DELIVERED ON:	1^st February 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	28-30 November 2007 Written submissions received from 7.12.2007 to 11.1.2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	Plaintiff’s claim dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Equity: doctrine of part performance, where parties entered into oral agreement for purchase of area of land, where full consideration had been paid and other acts of part performance admitted. Contract: where parties disputed the area of land sold, whether there had been a meeting of minds on a fundamental term, whether any contract found was void for illegality as contravening s8 Land Sales Act 1984. Legislation: Land Act 1994 Land Sales Act 1984 Land Title Act 1994 Property Law Act 1974 Cases Considered: Francis & Ors v NPD Property Development P/L [2004] QCA 343 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) CLR 355
COUNSEL:	Mr. Reed for the plaintiff Mr. Diehm for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Robert Downey Lawyers for the plaintiff Butler McDermott Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

The Plaintiff Gregory Corbett first met the defendant William Cousins in early 2000. At that time, Mr. Cousins and his wife Maureen were the registered proprietors as joint tenants of a number of adjoining parcels of land at Scrubby Creek via Gympie. Mr. and Mrs. Cousins then owned Lots 11, 13 and 14 on RP865216, with a total area of approximately 32 hectares. They had acquired the property from his parents in 1969 and the family had farmed it and other adjoining lots since the 1920’s when his grandfather first settled in the area.

Mr. Cousins was born on 10.11.32, so, at the time of trial he was 75 years of age. Mrs. Cousins died on 22.8.07 after a long illness.

In May 2000, Mr. Cousins agreed to lease Lots 11 and 13 to Mr. Corbett for the purposes of cattle agistment for 12 months which was extended for various periods until early 2002. All these agreements were oral.

On 3.2.2003, Mr. and Mrs. Cousins sold Lots 11 and 13 containing an area of 30.21 hectares to Mr. Corbett for $105,000. He was given immediate vacant possession. The contract was initially for 12 months but settled on or about 14 May 2003 after Mr. Corbett sold a property in Hervey Bay.

The Nature of the dispute

The dispute concerns the terms of what both parties agree was an oral agreement entered into between Mr. Corbett and Mr. Cousins (on behalf of himself and his wife) later in May for the sale of part of Lot 14. Mr. Corbett and Mr. Cousins agree that the sale price was $7,000 which has been paid in full but they disagree as to the method of payment and the area of land agreed to be sold. It is common ground that there was an implied…

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 Corbett v Cousins

Details

AGLC: Corbett v Cousins [2008] QDC 6
Case: [2008] QDC 6
Decision Date: 1 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Corbett, the plaintiff, and Cousins, the defendant, regarding an oral agreement for the purchase of a piece of land. The central issue was whether the agreement had been performed to an extent that the doctrine of part performance could be invoked, given that full consideration had already been paid and both parties admitted to acts of part performance. Corbett sought to enforce the agreement, while Cousins contested the existence of a binding contract, particularly questioning whether there had been a meeting of minds on the fundamental terms of the agreement and whether the contract was void for illegality under section 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984.

The court considered whether the doctrine of part performance could be applied, given that the full purchase price had already been paid. It examined whether there was a meeting of minds on the essential terms of the agreement, such as the specific area of land being sold, and whether any ambiguity in these terms rendered the contract void for uncertainty. Additionally, the court looked into whether the agreement contravened section 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984, which pertains to the illegality of certain land sale practices. The court referred to previous cases, including Francis & Ors v NPD Property Development P/L and Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, to aid in its reasoning.

The court found that despite the acts of part performance and payment of full consideration, there was insufficient evidence to establish a meeting of minds on the fundamental terms of the agreement. The court held that there was significant ambiguity regarding the specific area of land being sold, leading to an absence of a clear and definite agreement. Furthermore, the court concluded that the contract did not contravene section 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the absence of a binding contract due to the lack of clarity on the essential terms and the absence of any illegality in the agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff’s claim 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.