Enima Pty Limited v Redevelopments Pty Limited

Enima Pty Limited was engaged in a dispute with Redevelopments Pty Limited over the sale of land in Canberra, ACT. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of the ACT, where the central issue was the interpretation of a contract for the sale of land. The contract was for the sale of the unexpired residue of the Crown Lease of the land being Block 9, Section 50, Division of Macquarie. The dispute centred on whether the contract could be rectified to include a term that reflected the true intentions of the parties. Specifically, Enima argued that the contract should include a term that required the purchaser to apply for a change in the permitted use of the land, with a penalty if they did not. Redevelopments argued that no such term should be implied.

The court was required to decide whether the contract could be rectified to include a term that reflected the true intentions of the parties. The court also had to determine whether the doctrine of estoppel could be used to defeat a prior equitable interest held by Enima. The court considered whether the contract could be rectified to include a term that reflected the true intentions of the parties, and whether a nominee without notice under an option could defeat a prior equitable interest.

The court found that the contract could be rectified to include a term that reflected the true intentions of the parties. The court held that the parties had intended to include a term that required the purchaser to apply for a change in the permitted use of the land, with a penalty if they did not. The court also found that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to defeat a prior equitable interest held by Enima. The court held that the nominee was not without notice because they had actual notice of the prior equitable interest held by Enima. The court found that the contract should be rectified to include the term that reflected the true intentions of the parties, and that the parties had leave to file any written submissions as to any consequential orders they seek within 14 days from the date on which these reasons are published. The court also extended the time for any appeal to the Court of Appeal to 28 days from the date on which the reasons in this matter are published.