Dinsmit Pty Ltd v Mayne Co Investments Pty Ltd

In the matter of *Dinsmit Pty Ltd v Mayne Co Investments Pty Ltd*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute between Dinsmit Pty Ltd (the applicant) and Mayne Co Investments Pty Ltd (the respondent) concerning the validity of a notice to complete under a contract for the sale of land. The applicant sought to set aside the notice to complete, alleging it was invalid.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's notice to complete was validly served in accordance with the terms of the contract and the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the notice, which was sent by ordinary post to an address that was no longer the applicant's principal place of business, constituted effective service.

Justice Brown found that the notice to complete was invalid. Her Honour reasoned that while the contract permitted service by post, it did not override the statutory requirements for service under section 164 of the *Property Law Act 1974* (Qld). Section 164 requires that a notice be sent to the last known place of abode or business of the person to be served. As the respondent had not taken reasonable steps to ascertain the applicant's current address and had instead relied on an outdated address, the service was ineffective. The Court applied the principle that a notice to complete must be strictly compliant with contractual and statutory requirements to be valid.

Consequently, the Court made orders setting aside the notice to complete and restraining the respondent from terminating the contract on the basis of that notice.