Instrument 702027154 v Ormlie Trading Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

First Church of Christ, Scientist, Brisbane as Trustee under
Instrument 702027154 v Ormlie Trading Pty Ltd [2003]
QSC 351

PARTIES: 

FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, BRISBANE
AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT 702027154
(applicant)
v
ORMLIE TRADING PTY LTD CAN 058 322 651
(respondent)

FILE NOS: 

SC No 8292 of 2003 SC No 8450 of 2003

DIVISION: 

Trial Division

PROCEEDING: 

Application

DELIVERED ON: 

17 October 2003

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

17 October 2003

JUDGE: 

Philippides J

ORDERS: 

1.	Declared that the parties had not entered into a binding contract to purchase the property at Red Hill, Brisbane
2.	Caveat No 706934982 be removed
3.	The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS: 

Black & Ors v Australand Holdings Pty Ltd (Unreported,
Supreme Court of New South Wales, 27.08.03)
BP Oil New Zealand Ltd v Van Beers Motors Ltd
(Unreported, High Court of New Zealand, 10.03.92)
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v G H Dean & Co Pty
Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 204
GR Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty
Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631
Marek v Australasian Conference Association Pty Ltd [1994]
2 Qd R 521
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Oracle New Zealand Ltd v Price Waterhouse Administration
Ltd [1996] ANZ Conv Rep 295
Perry v Suffields Limited [1916] 2 Ch 187
Van Der Hulst v Tainui Corporation Ltd [1998] 2 NZLR 359

COUNSEL: 

B O’Donnell for the applicant
D J Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS: 

Dibbs Baker Gosling for the applicant Hemming and Hart for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J:

The applications

1. The applicant, First Church of Christ, Scientist, Brisbane, is the registered owner of two parcels of land at Red Hill in Brisbane. On 28 August 2003, the respondent, Ormlie Trading, lodged a caveat on both titles claiming an equitable estate in fee simple as purchaser.

2. On 24 September 2003 the respondent commenced an action seeking a declaration as to its interest in the property on the basis of a claim that it had entered into a binding contract to purchase the property from the applicant on 13 July 2002, and seeking specific performance of that contract. The applicant has brought two applications, one for the removal of the caveat and the other for a determination of the issue of whether the parities had entered into a binding contract of sale. The applicant, by a contract dated 19 August 2003, has contracted to sell the property to another party, Ms Adam for $1.1 million. That contract is due to settle on 20 October 2003.

3. The applications were adjourned to today so as to permit cross examination by the respondent. The matter proceeded today on the basis that the question of law as to whether a binding contract had been entered into would be determined, thereby rendering the pursuance of the application to remove the caveat unnecessary.

4. The respondent in its Statement of Claim pleads that;

(a) The parties…