Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd - [2010] QSC 193

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 193

PARTIES:

ROTHMONT PROJECTS PTY LTD (ACN 098994453)
(applicant, respondent in the original proceedings)

v

GARY KEITH DOOLAN AND KAREN LEIGH DOOLAN
(respondents, applicants in the original proceedings)

FILE NO/S:

BS2504 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2010

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

THE APPLICANT IS TO BRING IN MINUTES OF ORDER

CATCHWORDS:

CONVEYANCING – STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO CONTRACT FOR SALE – PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS – OBLIGATIONS ON VENDOR: DISCLOSURE, WARNINGS AND LIKE MATTERS – where a purchaser signed a contract to purchase a property – where the purchaser signed a warning statement before the offer was signed – where the vendor amended the special conditions – whether the amendment amounted to a counter-offer – whether the purchaser had to sign a new warning statement before signing the amended contract

CONVEYANCING – COMPLETION OF CONTRACT – TIME FOR COMPLETION – GENERALLY – where settlement did not occur at the time stipulated in the contract – whether the purchaser could terminate the contract after that time

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld)
Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), ss 363, 364, 365, 366B, 366D, 367
Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293

Armour Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259
Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxes (SA) v Elder’s Trustee and Executive Co Ltd (1936) 57 CLR 610
Gray v Morris [2004] 2 Qd R 118
Hedley Commercial Property Services Pty Ltd v BRCP Oasis Land Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 261
Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132
MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] 2 Qd R 515

Rice v Ray [2009] QDC 275

COUNSEL:

G Handran for the applicant in this proceeding

J B Sweeney for the respondents in this proceeding

SOLICITORS:

Hickey Lawyers for the applicant in this proceeding

Michael Sing Lawyers for the respondent in this proceeding

[1] On 9 March 2009 Gary Doolan and Leigh Doolan (“the Doolans”) filed an originating application in which they sought, among other things, declarations:

(a) that the written agreement of 10 October 2007 for the sale of property at Hope Island (“the property”) from them to Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd (“Rothmont”) had been validly terminated by them; and

(b) that they were entitled to forfeit the deposit of $330,000.

[2] The application before the Court, though, is by Rothmont in which it seeks, among other things, orders that the Doolans’ originating application be dismissed and that it be entitled to recover the deposit.

Background

[3] The facts in this dispute (apart from a question relating to one aspect of the conduct of the Doolans’ real estate agent) are non-contentious. The chronology of the relevant events is as follows:

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 Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 193
Case: [2010] QSC 193
Decision Date: 4 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the purchaser, Doolan, and the vendor, Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd, regarding the sale of a property. The central issue was whether a change in the special conditions of the contract required the purchaser to sign a new warning statement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue was whether an amendment to the special conditions by the vendor constituted a counter-offer, thereby necessitating a new warning statement from the purchaser before signing the contract. The court also needed to determine if the purchaser could terminate the contract due to the vendor's failure to meet the stipulated settlement time.

The court held that the amendment to the special conditions did not amount to a counter-offer and therefore did not require the purchaser to sign a new warning statement. The court found that the purchaser had waived their right to require a new warning statement by signing the initial one and proceeding with the contract. Additionally, the court found that the purchaser could not terminate the contract due to the delay in settlement as the delay was not significant enough to constitute a breach of the contract terms.

The court ordered that the applicant, Doolan, is to bring in minutes of order.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE APPLICANT IS TO BRING IN MINUTES OF ORDER

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:	Doolan v Rothmont Projects Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 193
PARTIES:	ROTHMONT PROJECTS PTY LTD (ACN 098994453) (applicant, respondent in the original proceedings) v GARY KEITH DOOLAN AND KAREN LEIGH DOOLAN (respondents, applicants in the original proceedings)
FILE NO/S:	BS2504 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 February 2010
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	THE APPLICANT IS TO BRING IN MINUTES OF ORDER
CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING – STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO CONTRACT FOR SALE – PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS – OBLIGATIONS ON VENDOR: DISCLOSURE, WARNINGS AND LIKE MATTERS – where a purchaser signed a contract to purchase a property – where the purchaser signed a warning statement before the offer was signed – where the vendor amended the special conditions – whether the amendment amounted to a counter-offer – whether the purchaser had to sign a new warning statement before signing the amended contract CONVEYANCING – COMPLETION OF CONTRACT – TIME FOR COMPLETION – GENERALLY – where settlement did not occur at the time stipulated in the contract – whether the purchaser could terminate the contract after that time Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), ss 363, 364, 365, 366B, 366D, 367 Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293 Armour Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259 Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxes (SA) v Elder’s Trustee and Executive Co Ltd (1936) 57 CLR 610 Gray v Morris [2004] 2 Qd R 118 Hedley Commercial Property Services Pty Ltd v BRCP Oasis Land Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 261 Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 ER 132 MNM Developments Pty Ltd v Gerrard [2005] 2 Qd R 515 Rice v Ray [2009] QDC 275
COUNSEL:	G Handran for the applicant in this proceeding J B Sweeney for the respondents in this proceeding
SOLICITORS:	Hickey Lawyers for the applicant in this proceeding Michael Sing Lawyers for the respondent in this proceeding