Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd v Brennan

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd v Brennan [2023] NSWSC 1095
Hearing dates: 8 June 2023
Date of orders: 8 September 2023
Decision date: 08 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Richmond J
Decision:

Defendants’ termination of the contract held to be ineffective. Parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons.

Catchwords:

LAND LAW — conveyancing — contract for sale — validity of notice to complete

LAND LAW — conveyancing — contract for sale — agreement to vary

Legislation Cited:

Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Electronic Conveyancing National Law (NSW)

Land Tax Management Act 1956 (NSW)

Electronic Conveyancing (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Carrapetta v Rado (2012) 16 BPR 30,997; [2012] NSWCA 202

Commissioner of Taxation v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (Australia) Pty Ltd (2000) 201 CLR 520; [2000] HCA 35

Dowling v Rae (1927) 39 CLR 363; [1927] HCA 5

H Clark (Doncaster) Ltd v Wilkinson [1965] 1 Ch 694

Inness v Waterson A/T for Cobok Family Trust [2006] QCA 155

McCausland v Duncan Lawrie Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 38

McNally v Waitzer [1981] 1 NSWLR 294

Morris v Baron & Co [1918] AC 1

Nowrani Pty Ltd v Brown [1989] 2 Qd R 582

Phillips v Ellinson Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 65 CLR 221; [1941] HCA 35

Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 605; [2015] NSWCA 313

Proctor v Chahl [2008] NSWSC 1252

Radoman Pty Ltd v Vexapu Pty Ltd (2008) 13 BPR 24,903; [2008] NSWSC 8

Sandpiper Kooragang Pty Ltd v Fortis Products Pty Ltd (2020) 19 BPR 40,689; [2020] NSWSC 1256

Texts Cited:

GE Dal Pont, Law of Agency (4th ed, Lexis Nexis, 2020)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Stephen Leonard Brennan and Gregory John Holdsworth (Defendants)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Allen (Plaintiff)
M J Wells (Defendants)

Solicitors:
Darby Jones (Plaintiff)
Kerrisons Legal Services (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2022/210748
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

  1. The plaintiff (purchaser) seeks an order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land entered into on 8 December 2020 (the Contract) in respect of land situated at Menangle NSW 2568 (the Property). The plaintiff, Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd, was the purchaser under the Contract. The defendants, Mr Brennan and Mr Holdsworth were the vendors (vendors). The plaintiff entered into the Contract as trustee for the Menangle Unit Trust.

  2. By summons filed on 19 July 2022, the plaintiff claims that the defendants wrongfully purported to terminate the Contract for breach, and that the Contract remains on foot. The defendants submit that the Contract was validly terminated for breach following the service of a notice to complete on 8 June 2022, and the passing of the time specified for completion of 24 June 2022.

  3. The primary dispute between the parties is whether that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd v Brennan 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
[2023] NSWSC 1095
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hawkes Menangle Pty Ltd sued Brennan for specific performance of a contract to sell property. The dispute arose from a contract for sale where the purchaser had failed to complete the purchase within the stipulated time. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the notice to complete served by the vendor was valid under the contract and if it could be varied without the purchaser's consent. The court needed to determine if the contract allowed for the variation of the notice to complete and if the notice was valid when served.

The court held that the contract did not explicitly prohibit the variation of the notice to complete. It emphasised that the terms of the contract must be strictly adhered to unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The court found that since the contract did not specify that the notice to complete could not be varied, it was permissible to do so with the consent of the purchaser. The notice was deemed valid when served, as it complied with the contract's requirements. Consequently, the purchaser was liable for specific performance of the contract.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled in favour of the vendor, ordering the purchaser to complete the sale of the property as per the original contract terms. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract unless there is explicit provision for variation. The decision underscored the principle that contracts for the sale of property must be performed as agreed, and any deviation from the agreed terms requires clear consent from all parties involved. The purchaser was thus directed to complete the sale within the time frames specified by the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.