Exhibition Marketing Pty Limited ACN 010 519 329 v Richmond Valley Council

In the case of Exhibition Marketing Pty Limited v Richmond Valley Council, the dispute centred around a contract for the sale of land and the subsequent termination of that contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The vendor, Exhibition Marketing, sought to terminate the contract for the sale of land to the purchaser, Richmond Valley Council, claiming that the purchaser had failed to register an easement within the time specified in the contract. The purchaser argued that there was no obligation to construct drainage works and that the vendor could not terminate the contract without first allowing a further reasonable time.

The court had to determine whether there was an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to construct drainage works, whether the vendor could terminate the contract for the failure to register the easement within the specified time, and whether the vendor had repudiated the contract. The court found that there was no express or implied obligation on the purchaser to construct the drainage works. Regarding the easement, the court held that the vendor could not terminate the contract without first allowing a further reasonable time. The court also found that the vendor was under an express or implied obligation to cooperate in relation to the satisfaction of the condition subsequent. The court concluded that there was no repudiation and that the purported termination was ineffective.

The court further considered whether it was appropriate to order specific performance or declaratory relief. The court held that specific performance was not appropriate in the circumstances but that declaratory relief was of utility. The court made a declaration that the contract remained in force and that the vendor could not terminate it for the failure to register the easement within the specified time. The court also found that the vendor was under an obligation to cooperate in relation to the satisfaction of the condition subsequent. The court ordered that the contract remain in force and that the vendor was under an obligation to cooperate with the purchaser in relation to the registration of the easement.