Real Property (Q.)—Home unit—Exclusive use of car parking space—Use of space governed by by-law—By-law required to specify terms and conditions of special privileges given to particular lot over common property—Validity of by-law—Delegation of legislative power—Reference to extrinsic matters—Specific performance—Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Q.), s. 30(7).
Decisions
GIBBS C.J. The appellant was the vendor and the respondents were the purchasers under a contract made on 30 August 1981 for the sale of a home unit (lot No. 21) in a multi-storey building intended to be constructed by the appellant at Surfers Paradise in Queensland. The building was constructed and a plan was registered under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Q.) ("the Act") on 31 December 1982. The effect of cl.3(a) of the contract, in the circumstances, was that settlement was required to take place on or before either 1 February 1983 or 4 February 1983 - according to the pleadings, the former date was the correct one, but as will be seen it is immaterial which was correct. When the time came for settlement the value of units on the Gold Coast had considerably declined and the purchasers naturally wished to be free of their obligations under the contract. They declined to attend for settlement in February, or on a further date nominated by the vendor - 17 March 1983. By their defence to an action for specific performance brought by the vendor they claimed that they were entitled to rescind the contract and denied that the vendor was ready, willing and able to perform it. Their claim is now based on the contention (first made after the vendor had commenced proceedings) that the vendor could not comply with cl.5 of the contract and persisted in offering to perform the contract in a way different from that which cl.5 required, and that the purchasers were entitled to, and did, treat the vendor's action as a repudiation of the contract.
2. Clause 5 of the contract was in the following terms:
"(a) The Vendor will ensure that prior to settlement the By-Laws of the Body Corporate brought into existence upon the registration of the Plan will grant to the proprietor for the time being of the said unit the exclusive use for car parking of that part of the common property outlined in red on the sketch plan marked 'B' annexed hereto.
(b) The Vendor may elect to include the car space as part of the said unit in the Plan. If the Vendor so elects then the terms of paragraph (a) of this clause shall not apply and the By-Laws to be adopted on registration of the Plan shall be varied accordingly."
The sketch plan showed that the common property was divided into 165 areas, of which one, No. 7, was outlined in red.
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 Dainford Ltd v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dainford Ltd v Smith [1985] HCA 23
Case
[1985] HCA 23
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Dainford Ltd, the appellant, appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a lease agreement and the appellant's right to exercise an option to renew the lease. The respondent, Smith, was the lessor under the lease.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant had validly exercised its option to renew the lease. This involved determining whether the notice of exercise of the option complied with the specific requirements stipulated in the lease agreement, particularly concerning the method of delivery.
The High Court considered the plain language of the lease, which required notice to be given by registered post to the lessor's registered address. The Court found that the notice provided by the appellant was sent by ordinary post and not registered post, and therefore did not satisfy the contractual requirements for valid exercise of the option. The Court applied the principle that contractual conditions precedent must be strictly performed, and that a failure to comply with such conditions renders the purported exercise of the option ineffective.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland.