Downing v Lau

In the matter of Downing v Lau, the dispute arose from the sale of a property in Victoria. The purchaser, Downing, sought to rescind the contract for the sale of land, claiming that the vendor, Lau, had failed to include certain information about a current planning permit in the statutory 32 statement required under the Sale of Land Act (Vic) 1962. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract under section 32K of the Sale of Land Act (Vic) 1962 due to the omission of information regarding the planning permit in the 32 statement. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the vendor had acted honestly and reasonably, and whether the conveyancer employed by the vendor was acting as the vendor’s agent in preparing the 32 statement. The court also had to consider whether the purchaser would be in substantially as good a position as if the information about the planning permit had been included.

The court found that the omission of the planning permit information from the 32 statement constituted a significant breach. However, the court considered the circumstances surrounding the omission and the actions of the vendor and the conveyancer. The court determined that the vendor had acted honestly and reasonably in the preparation of the 32 statement, despite the error. The conveyancer, while employed by the vendor, was found not to be acting as the vendor’s agent in this context. The court also concluded that the purchaser would not be in substantially as good a position as if the information had been included, as the omission of the planning permit information significantly affected the purchaser’s decision-making process. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the vendor, finding that the purchaser was not entitled to rescind the contract.

As a result of the court's decision, the contract for the sale of land between the parties was upheld. The purchaser's claim for rescission was dismissed, and the sale proceeded as per the original terms. The court's ruling affirmed the importance of the accuracy and completeness of the 32 statement, but also highlighted the need to consider the context and the actions of the parties involved in the preparation of such statements.