New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: HANDLEY & Anor v GUNNER [2008] NSWCA 113 HEARING DATE(S): 11 April 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 2008JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hodgson JA at 110; Campbell JA at 117 DECISION: Appeal upheld CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – Easements – particular easements and rights – rights of way - CONTRACTS – General contractual principles – discharge, breach and defences to action for breach – performance – whether respondent’s obligations under deed spent – where term requiring respondent to issue transfer at request of appellant - CONTRACTS – General contractual principles – construction and interpretation of contracts – implied term – duration of contract – whether implication in contract that term to be exercised within a reasonable time – whether reasonable time had elapsed LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969
Suitor’s Fund Act 1951CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Bragg v Alam (1982) NSW Conv R 55-082
Bragg v Alam [1981] 1 NSWLR 668
Brambles Holdings Pty Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Tooth & Co Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Hodgson J, 11 June 1985, unreported
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337
Ellmore (Maitland) Pty Ltd v Tull (1995) 7 BPR 14,305
Gallagher v Rainbow (1994) 179 CLR 624
Geraghty v Russell (1874) 5 AJR 89
Hall v Busst (1960) 104 CLR 206
Maritime Services Board of NSW v Australian Shipping Commission (1991) 27 NSWLR 258
Neill v Public Trustee [1978] 2 NSWLR 65
Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd v Western Australian Club Inc (1993) 177 CLR 635
Partridge v Preddey (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 36
Reid v Moreland Timber Co Pty Ltd [1946] HCA 48
Rudi’s Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jay (1987) 10 NSWLR 568
Short v Patrial Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,996
Warburton v National Westminster Finance Australia Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 238TEXTS CITED: JW Carter, et al, Cases and Materials on Contract Law in Australia, 5th ed (2007) LexisNexis Butterworths,
Chitty on Contracts, 29th ed (1999) Sweet & Maxwell
Voumard, The Sale of Land, 5th ed (1995) LBC Information ServicesPARTIES: Neil Charles HANDLEY & Anor v Norman Henry GUNNER
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40425/2007 COUNSEL: Appellants: J Gleeson SC/ G A Rich
Respondent: T G R Parker SC/ N J OwensSOLICITORS: Appellants: Manion McCosker
Respondent: Beswick SolicitorsLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3498/2006 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Young CJ in Eq LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 June 2007 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: NSWSC 601
CA 40425/2007
Wednesday 28 May 2008MASON P
HODGSON JA
CAMPBELL JA
Neil Charles HANDLEY & Anor v Norman Henry GUNNER
JUDGMENT
1 MASON P: The appellants seek orders in the nature of specific performance to enforce a Deed entered into between themselves and the respondent on 28 February 1994. Their summons was dismissed…
Continue reading Handley v Gunner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Handley v Gunner [2008] NSWCA 113
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 113
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Handley v Gunner* concerned a dispute between the appellant, Handley, and the respondent, Gunner, regarding rights of way and contractual obligations. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's obligations under a deed had been discharged, specifically concerning a term that required the respondent to issue a transfer at the appellant's request. The court also had to determine whether an implied term existed within the contract that such a request must be made within a reasonable time, and if so, whether a reasonable time had elapsed.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the obligation to issue a transfer was not spent and that the deed did not contain an implied term that the request for transfer must be made within a reasonable time. The court found that the respondent's obligations remained on foot. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's obligations under a deed had been discharged, specifically concerning a term that required the respondent to issue a transfer at the appellant's request. The court also had to determine whether an implied term existed within the contract that such a request must be made within a reasonable time, and if so, whether a reasonable time had elapsed.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the obligation to issue a transfer was not spent and that the deed did not contain an implied term that the request for transfer must be made within a reasonable time. The court found that the respondent's obligations remained on foot. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld
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.