Dipika Investments Pty Ltd v Australian Liquid Distribution Pty Ltd

Dipika Investments Pty Ltd sought to enforce three contracts for the sale of businesses against Australian Liquid Distribution Pty Ltd. The contracts required the consent of a landlord and one mortgagee for the assignment of the leases, and Dipika argued that the consents were provided through emails. Australian Liquid Distribution argued that the consents had to be in the form of Deeds of Assignment and had not been obtained in time. The court had to determine whether the contracts were concluded and whether the respondent validly terminated them.

The court considered whether the landlord's consent was properly provided through emails, as opposed to Deeds of Assignment, and whether the mortgagee's consent was obtained in time. The court held that the landlord's consent had to be in the form of Deeds of Assignment, and the mortgagee's consent had to be obtained on or before the Date of Completion. The court found that the landlord's consent was not properly provided, and the mortgagee's consent was not obtained in time, leading to the respondent's valid termination of the contracts.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for specific performance of the contracts, finding that the contracts were not properly concluded. The court also noted that the parties would be heard on the issue of costs.

The court ordered that the applicant's application for specific performance of the contracts be dismissed and that the parties would be heard on the issue of costs.