Dunworth v Mirvac Qld P/L

Dunworth commenced proceedings against Mirvac, alleging that the defendant made misleading or deceptive representations regarding the height, privacy, and security of an apartment, as well as plans for the land adjoining the apartment, in contravention of sections 52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The plaintiff also sought to have a contract of sale declared null and void on the grounds that the community titles scheme was not validly established. Mirvac counterclaimed for specific performance of the contract of sale. The court had to decide whether there were any misleading or deceptive representations made by Mirvac and, if so, whether they contravened sections 52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the community titles scheme was validly established.

The court held that Mirvac did not make any misleading or deceptive representations regarding the height, privacy, or security of the apartment or the plans for the land adjoining the apartment. Therefore, there was no contravention of sections 52 and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The court also found that the community titles scheme was validly established, as the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) s 60 did not require the community management scheme to be re-noted and re-endorsed by the planning body prior to being recorded by the Registrar of Titles. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for specific performance was successful. The court ordered the plaintiff to specifically perform the contract of sale, with the completion date set for 8 February 2011, and the defendant to return any bank guarantee given by the plaintiff upon settlement. The court also set out the procedure for determining the costs of the proceedings.