Inness v Waterson A/T for Cobok Family Trust

In the matter of Inness v Waterson A/T for Cobok Family Trust, the appellant, the vendor, appealed against the decision of the trial judge which determined that the contract for the settlement of property had been validly extended by a telephone conversation between the vendor’s conveyancing clerk and the purchaser’s solicitor. The appellant contended that the extension of time for settlement was not valid, arguing that the conveyancing clerk did not have authority to extend the settlement time. The respondent, the purchaser, maintained that the extension was valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the extension was valid, and whether the trial judge erred in preferring the evidence of the respondent over that of the conveyancing clerk.

The central legal issue was whether the vendor was bound by an extension of the settlement date communicated by the conveyancing clerk, and whether this was within the scope of the clerk’s apparent authority. The Court needed to examine the nature of the authority held by the conveyancing clerk and determine whether the trial judge correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. The Court also had to consider whether the extension of the settlement date complied with the original contract terms and whether it was effectively communicated to the vendor.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in preferring the evidence of the respondent over that of the conveyancing clerk. The Court held that the conveyancing clerk's actions were within her apparent authority, and that the extension of the settlement date was effectively communicated and accepted by the respondent. The Court determined that the trial judge was entitled to find that the extension was valid based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the vendor was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.