Legal Research
Cases
Grainger v Williams

Grainger v Williams

Case [2000] WADC 296 17 November 2000

Contract Formation

Misrepresentation

Repudiation & Termination

Specific Performance

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GRAINGER & ANOR -v- WILLIAMS & ORS [2000] WADC 296

CORAM: YEATS DCJ

HEARD: 4 & 31 OCTOBER 2000

DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 237 of 1999

BETWEEN: GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER
JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Plaintiffs (Respondents)
AND
GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS
First Defendant (First Appellant)
RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS
Second Defendant (Second Appellant)
MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS
Third Defendant (Third Appellant)

Catchwords:

Appeal from Registrar - Contract - Whether contract for sale of property and agreements to lease comprise one transaction - Whether defendants could rescind the contract for sale but keep a lease on foot - Rule in Suttor's case does not apply to the facts - Misrepresentation by the plaintiffs has not brought the contract to an end - Defendants chose to rescind the contract - Failure to complete the contract by the defendants terminated the lease - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs (Respondents) : Mr M G Clay
First Defendant (First Appellant) : Mr D H Solomon &
Mr M A R Blundell

Second Defendant (Second Appellant) : Mr D H Solomon &
Mr M A R Blundell

Third Defendant (Third Appellant) : Mr D H Solomon &
Mr M A R Blundell

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs (Respondents)  :        Martin de Haas
First Defendant (First Appellant)             :        Solomon Brothers
Second Defendant (Second Appellant)     :        Solomon Brothers
Third Defendant (Third Appellant) :        Solomon Brothers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Havenbar Pty Ltd v Butterfield (1974) 133 CLR 449
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418

Case(s) also cited:

Associated Alloys Pty Ltd v ACN 001 452 106 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (formerly Metropolitan Engineering and Fabrications Pty Ltd) & Anor [2000] HCA 25
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Cubillo v Commonwealth (1999) 163 ALR 395
Emanuele & Anor v Australian Securities Commission & Ors (1997) 188 CLR 114
Westpac Banking Corporation v Paterson [1999] FCA 1609

YEATS DCJ: This is an appeal by the first, second and third defendants from the decision of the learned Registrar Hewitt made in chambers on 24 August 1999 and 26 August 1999 that the plaintiffs in this matter were entitled to summary judgment; the learned Registrar ordered the defendants to deliver up possession of Kent locations 1658 and 1659 to the plaintiffs within 21 days and ordered that the plaintiffs have the right on 24 hours notice to attend at Kent locations 1658 and 1659 for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. There were further orders entitling the plaintiffs to compensation and/or damages for the defendants' occupation of land, that…

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.

Continue reading Grainger v Williams

Details

AGLC: Grainger v Williams [2000] WADC 296
Case: [2000] WADC 296
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Grainger v Williams concerns the nature of a contract for the sale of property and associated agreements to lease. The defendants, Grainger, appealed against a decision by a Registrar, arguing that the contract for sale and the lease agreement constituted one transaction. They sought to rescind the contract for the sale of the property while retaining the lease agreement. The plaintiffs, Williams, cross-appealed, arguing that the misrepresentation by Grainger warranted the termination of the contract.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the contract for sale and the lease agreement were part of a single transaction and if Grainger could rescind the sale but retain the lease. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the misrepresentation by Grainger warranted rescission and if Grainger's failure to complete the sale terminated the lease. The court had to apply principles of contract law, including the rule in Suttor v Gundowda, to resolve these issues.

In ruling on the appeal, the court found that the contract for sale and the lease agreement were not part of a single transaction, thus the rule in Suttor v Gundowda did not apply. The court held that while the misrepresentation by Grainger did not invalidate the entire contract, it did allow Grainger to choose to rescind the contract for the sale. However, Grainger's decision to rescind also led to the termination of the lease agreement due to their failure to complete the sale. The court dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal, affirming the Registrar's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the Registrar's decision was upheld. The contract for the sale of the property and the lease agreement were treated as separate transactions, and Grainger's decision to rescind the sale contract also terminated the lease. The misrepresentation by Grainger did not bring the entire contract to an end, but it did provide a basis for rescission.

Orders