Goldtaper Pty Ltd v Berela Pty Ltd - [2001] QSC 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Goldtaper Pty Ltd & Ors v Berela Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 104

PARTIES: GOLDTAPER PTY LTD (ACN 010 588 815)
(first plaintiff)
HARACLIFF PTY LTD (ACN 010 820 809)
(second plaintiff)
KEMBROOK PTY LTD (ACN 010 839 933)
(third plaintiff)
v
BERELA LIMITED (ACN 010 671 315)
(Defendant) FILE NO/S: 10989/98

DIVISION: Brisbane Supreme Court Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 10 April 2001

DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 12, 13, 14 March 2001

JUDGES: Atkinson J

ORDER: Plaintiffs awarded damages in sum of $441,747.07.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION – Whether on proper construction of contract circumstances have arisen since signing of contract entitling Plaintiffs to payment under contract.

CONTRACT – RECTIFICATION – PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED – COMMON INTENTION – Whether mistake made by parties in expression of common intention so that contract does not embody that intention.
CONTRACT – IMPLIED TERMS – Whether implied term of contract that Defendant would do all things necessary to enable Plaintiffs to have benefit of the contract.
Arlenby Marketing Pty Ltd v Chief Executive of the
Queensland Department of Transport P & E Appeal No 39 of
1996, 4 November 1996, considered
2

Australian Course Grains Pool Pty Ltd v Barley Marketing
Board [1989] 1 QR 499, considered
Australian Gypsum Ltd and Australian Plaster Co Ltd v
Hume Steel Ltd (1930) 45 CLR 54, followed
Barque Quilpué Ltd v Brown [1904] 2 KB 264, considered
Butt v McDonald (1896) 7 QLJ 68, followed
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW
(1982) 149 CLR 337, considered
Fitzgerald v FJ Leonhardt Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 215, considered
Fowler v Fowler (1859) 4 De G & J 250, followed Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239, followed Mackay v Dick (1861) 6 App Cas 251, considered Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128
CLR 336, followed
Marshall v The Colonial Bank of Australia (1904) 1 CLR
633, followed
New South Wales v The Commonwealth (1990) 169 CLR 482, considered
Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd v Western Australian Club Inc, considered
Pacific Exchange Corporation Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City
Council and Anor, P& E Appeal No 32 of 1996, 29 October
1996, considered
Pukallus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447, followed Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596, considered
Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR
359, followed
Slee v Warke (1949) 86 CLR 271, followed

COUNSEL: J.Bell QC for the Plaintiffs
P.McMurdo QC for the Defendant

SOLICITORS: Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the Plaintiffs
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the Defendant

[1] In 1993, the plaintiffs, Goldtaper Pty Ltd, Haracliff Pty Ltd and Kembrook Pty Ltd, owned property at Coomera (“the land”). The northern border of the land was the southern bank of the Coomera River. The southern border of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Goldtaper Pty Ltd v Berela Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] QSC 104
Decision Date: 10/04/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Goldtaper Pty Ltd v Berela Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with resolving a dispute between the plaintiffs, Goldtaper Pty Ltd, Haracliff Pty Ltd, and Kembrook Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Berela Limited, regarding the interpretation and enforcement of a contract for the sale of land. The legal issues centered around the interpretation of a specific clause in the contract concerning the contribution to external road works and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to payment under the contract due to a relaxation of the contribution requirement. The court also considered whether the contract should be rectified to reflect the parties' common intention and if damages should be awarded for the breach of contract.

The court held that, on the proper construction of the contract, the circumstances entitling the plaintiffs to payment had not arisen. However, the court found that the defendant breached the contract by applying for the relaxation of the road contribution requirement, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from securing the benefit of the relaxation themselves. The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for breach of contract in the sum of $441,747.07, which included the value of the relaxation and interest.

The court further determined that there was no basis for rectifying the contract as there was no mistake in the expression of the parties' common intention at the time of signing the contract. The plaintiffs' request for rectification was denied as the terms of the contract accurately reflected the parties' agreement regarding the application and benefit of the relaxation. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract and the legal consequences of breaching those terms.

Orders