Habi Pty Ltd v Global Group Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2013] QDC 55

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Habi Pty Ltd v Global Group Enterprises Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 55

PARTIES:

HABI PTY LTD ACN 001345476

(Applicant / Plaintiff)

and

GLOBAL GROUP ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 137875417

(Respondent / Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4952 / 12

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Hearing of an application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2013

JUDGE:

R S Jones DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed;

2. I will hear from the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND – Whether defendant in breach of contract for sale of land – whether breach constituted a repudiation by the defendants of its obligations under the contract – whether repudiation capable of acceptance by the plaintiff – whether time was of the essence of the contract.

PROCEEDURE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Rural 292 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – whether the summary judgment should be entered before the plaintiff – application on the papers – where issues of credit is involved.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Rule 292

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QDR 232

Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385

Hughes v Westpac Bank Inc [2010] QSC 274

Inness v Waterson as Trustee for the Cobok Family Trust [2006] QCA 155

J M Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Toga Development No 31 Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 312

McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 4

Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119

Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Horne [2009] QSC 269

Spencer v The Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28

Tarangau Game Fishing Charters Pty Ltd v Eagle Yachts Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 16

COUNSEL:

Mr M. M. Stewart SC for the applicant/plaintiff

Mr P. J. Roney SC for the respondent/defendant

SOLICITORS:

Russell Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff

This proceeding was concerned with an application brought by the applicant for summary judgment pursuant to r 292 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) for the reasons given the orders of the Court are:

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed; and

2. I will hear from the parties as to costs.

Background

On 6 November 2012, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract for the sale of land described as Lot 124 on Crown Plan ML374 Parish Gladfield County of Merivale. Pursuant to the contract:

· A purchase price of $1,125,000 was agreed upon as the purchase price; and

· The applicant paid a deposit of $80,000 to Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd.

Settlement date for the contract was to be “within 14 days of finance approval”. Time was made the essence of the contract pursuant to cl 6.1 which provided:

“Time is of the essence of this contract, except regarding any agreement between the parties on a time of day for settlement.”

The sale was concerned with a rural property and a number of special conditions were included within the contract,…

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 Habi Pty Ltd v Global Group Enterprises 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: [2013] QDC 55
Decision Date: 27 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Habi Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Global Group Enterprises Pty Ltd, the defendant, concerning a dispute over the sale of land. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant had breached the contract for the sale of land and that such breach constituted a repudiation of the defendant's obligations under the contract. The plaintiff further sought an order that the repudiation was capable of acceptance by the plaintiff and that time was of the essence of the contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had breached the contract for the sale of land and, if so, whether such breach constituted a repudiation of its obligations under the contract. The court was also required to determine whether the repudiation was capable of acceptance by the plaintiff and whether time was of the essence of the contract. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract for the sale of land, but this breach did not constitute a repudiation of its obligations under the contract. The court held that the breach was not of a nature that would allow the plaintiff to accept the repudiation. The court further found that time was not of the essence of the contract, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment. The court dismissed the application for summary judgment and ordered that the parties would provide further information regarding costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for summary judgment and ordered the parties to provide further information regarding costs. The court found that while the defendant had breached the contract for the sale of land, this breach did not constitute a repudiation of its obligations under the contract. The court held that the breach was not of a nature that would allow the plaintiff to accept the repudiation and that time was not of the essence of the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed;

2. I will hear from the parties as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Habi Pty Ltd v Global Group Enterprises Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 55
PARTIES:	HABI PTY LTD ACN 001345476 (Applicant / Plaintiff) and GLOBAL GROUP ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 137875417 (Respondent / Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	4952 / 12
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of an application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2013
JUDGE:	R S Jones DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The application for summary judgment is dismissed; 2. I will hear from the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND – Whether defendant in breach of contract for sale of land – whether breach constituted a repudiation by the defendants of its obligations under the contract – whether repudiation capable of acceptance by the plaintiff – whether time was of the essence of the contract. PROCEEDURE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Rural 292 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – whether the summary judgment should be entered before the plaintiff – application on the papers – where issues of credit is involved. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Rule 292 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QDR 232 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 Hughes v Westpac Bank Inc [2010] QSC 274 Inness v Waterson as Trustee for the Cobok Family Trust [2006] QCA 155 J M Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd v Toga Development No 31 Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 312 McPhee v Zarb [2002] QSC 4 Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119 Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Horne [2009] QSC 269 Spencer v The Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28 Tarangau Game Fishing Charters Pty Ltd v Eagle Yachts Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 16
COUNSEL:	Mr M. M. Stewart SC for the applicant/plaintiff Mr P. J. Roney SC for the respondent/defendant
SOLICITORS:	Russell Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff