Davidson & Anor v. Bucknell & Anor - [2009] QSC 182

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davidson & Anor v Bucknell & Anor [2009] QSC 182

PARTIES:

WILLIAM JAMES ALEXANDER DAVIDSON
(First plaintiff)
DAVIDSON CATTLE COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 122 578 518
(Second Plaintiff)
v
ROBERT WILLIAM BUCKNELL and SUSAN ROSEMARY BUCKNELL
(First Defendant)
RASS FARMING PTY LTD ACN 116 788 286
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

8 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2009

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. The plaintiffs’ respective claims are dismissed.
2. Declare that the contract between the first plaintiff and the first defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 142 on SP 154473 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated by the first defendant.

3. Declare that the contract between the second plaintiff and the second defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 152 on SP 206165 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated.

4. That the caveat numbered 711971317 and caveat numbered 711971314 be removed from the title of Lot 142 on SP 154473, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50572308 and be removed from the title of Lot 152 on SP 206165, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50675311 pursuant to section 127 of the Land Title Act 1994.

5. That the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding other than their costs of the application for summary judgment. In respect of the reserved costs of that application, each party should bear his, her or its own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into two interdependent contracts for the sale of the land – where each of the contracts contained a special condition making it subject to and conditional upon the contemporaneous completion of the other contract - where one contract included house and land and the second contract was for commercial land – where each contract was in the standard form approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society with additional special conditions.

Land Title Act 1994 s 127

Property Law Act 1974 s 71, s 72

Consolidated Holdings v Ireland [1946] 1 KB 264
Dainford Ltd v Yulora Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 456
Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385
Ireland v Leigh [1982] QdR 145
Jeppesons Road Pty Ltd v Romeo di Domenico & Anor [2005] QCA 391
Lohar Corporation Pty Ltd v Dibu Pty Ltd [1976] BPR 97014
Lowe v Evans [1989] 1 QdR 295
Mehmet v Benson [1964-5] 113 CLR 295
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
Jones & Anor v Millward & Anor [2005] QCA 76

COUNSEL:

Mr Gotterson QC with Mr Jonsson for the plaintiffs
Mr Mullins SC with Ms S Holland for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Preston Law Lawyers for the plaintiffs
Miller Harris Lawyers for the…

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 Davidson & Anor v. Bucknell & Anor

Details

AGLC: Davidson v Bucknell [2009] QSC 182
Case: [2009] QSC 182
Decision Date: 8 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davidson and Anor v Bucknell and Anor was a case before the Queensland Supreme Court where the plaintiffs sought to enforce two interdependent contracts for the sale of land against the defendants. Each contract contained a special condition making it subject to and conditional upon the contemporaneous completion of the other contract. The first contract was for the sale of a house and land while the second was for commercial land. Both contracts were in the standard form approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society with additional special conditions.

The primary legal issue was whether the special conditions in each contract, which made each contract conditional upon the completion of the other, could be interpreted as a cross-condition or as a condition precedent. If the special conditions were interpreted as a cross-condition, the contracts would have been interdependent and each party would have been bound to complete its obligations simultaneously. However, if the special conditions were interpreted as a condition precedent, then each party would only be required to complete its obligations once the other party had first completed their obligations. The court had to decide which interpretation was correct and whether the contracts could be enforced by the plaintiffs.

The court held that the special conditions in the contracts should be interpreted as a condition precedent and not as a cross-condition. The court found that the contracts were not interdependent but rather sequential, with each party having to complete its obligations before the other party was required to do so. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the defendants had waived the condition precedent or that the contracts had been novated. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and declared that the contracts were lawfully terminated by the defendants. The court also ordered that the caveats be removed from the titles of the land and that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding.

In summary, the Queensland Supreme Court found that the special conditions in the contracts were a condition precedent and not a cross-condition, meaning that the contracts were not interdependent but rather sequential. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and declared that the contracts were lawfully terminated by the defendants. The court also ordered that the caveats be removed from the titles of the land and that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiffs’ respective claims are dismissed.

2. Declare that the contract between the first plaintiff and the first defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 142 on SP 154473 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated by the first defendant.

3. Declare that the contract between the second plaintiff and the second defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 152 on SP 206165 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated.

4. That the caveat numbered 711971317 and caveat numbered 711971314 be removed from the title of Lot 142 on SP 154473, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50572308 and be removed from the title of Lot 152 on SP 206165, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50675311 pursuant to section 127 of the Land Title Act 1994.

5. That the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding other than their costs of the application for summary judgment. In respect of the reserved costs of that application, each party should bear his, her or its own costs.

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:	Davidson & Anor v Bucknell & Anor [2009] QSC 182
PARTIES:	WILLIAM JAMES ALEXANDER DAVIDSON (First plaintiff) DAVIDSON CATTLE COMPANY PTY LTD ACN 122 578 518 (Second Plaintiff) v ROBERT WILLIAM BUCKNELL and SUSAN ROSEMARY BUCKNELL (First Defendant) RASS FARMING PTY LTD ACN 116 788 286 (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	8 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	30 April 2009
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiffs’ respective claims are dismissed. 2. Declare that the contract between the first plaintiff and the first defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 142 on SP 154473 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated by the first defendant. 3. Declare that the contract between the second plaintiff and the second defendant dated 15 June 2007 for the sale of Lot 152 on SP 206165 County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh was lawfully terminated. 4. That the caveat numbered 711971317 and caveat numbered 711971314 be removed from the title of Lot 142 on SP 154473, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50572308 and be removed from the title of Lot 152 on SP 206165, County of Cardwell, Parish of Woodleigh, title reference 50675311 pursuant to section 127 of the Land Title Act 1994. 5. That the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding other than their costs of the application for summary judgment. In respect of the reserved costs of that application, each party should bear his, her or its own costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into two interdependent contracts for the sale of the land – where each of the contracts contained a special condition making it subject to and conditional upon the contemporaneous completion of the other contract - where one contract included house and land and the second contract was for commercial land – where each contract was in the standard form approved by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society with additional special conditions. Land Title Act 1994 s 127 Property Law Act 1974 s 71, s 72 Consolidated Holdings v Ireland [1946] 1 KB 264 Dainford Ltd v Yulora Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 456 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 Ireland v Leigh [1982] QdR 145 Jeppesons Road Pty Ltd v Romeo di Domenico & Anor [2005] QCA 391 Lohar Corporation Pty Ltd v Dibu Pty Ltd [1976] BPR 97014 Lowe v Evans [1989] 1 QdR 295 Mehmet v Benson [1964-5] 113 CLR 295 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 Jones & Anor v Millward & Anor [2005] QCA 76
COUNSEL:	Mr Gotterson QC with Mr Jonsson for the plaintiffs Mr Mullins SC with Ms S Holland for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Preston Law Lawyers for the plaintiffs Miller Harris Lawyers for the…