| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST
S ECI 2018 00987
| K7 Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 163 701 00987) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Abbotsford Estates Pty Ltd (ACN 614 886 958) | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Forbes J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATES OF HEARING: | 4-6 May 2021 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 15 July 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | K7 Developments Pty Ltd v Abbotsford Estates Pty Ltd |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 422 |
---
CONTRACT – Breach of contract of sale of land – Delayed settlement of contract of sale –Specific performance sought by purchaser - Whether each party was ready, willing and able to settle the contract – Agreement to extend settlement date at request of purchaser but settlement then requested on original date – Whether terms of agreement to extend settlement period govern rights and obligations – Counterclaim seeking damages arising from delayed settlement – Construction of contract - Whether purchaser in default or otherwise required to pay interest when settlement delayed – Sale of land where supply made under the contract was Supply of a Going Concern pursuant to A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth) – Special and General conditions of contract – GST liability when vendor did not continue going concern for the whole of the property – Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 – Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 261 CLR 544 – Catley v Watson (1981) V ConvR 54-003 – Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 – Carrapetta v Rado [2012] NSWCA 202.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr S. Horgan QC with Mr B. Murphy | White Ellis Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr D. McAloon | B2B Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
The plaintiff purchased property at 288-298 Johnston St, Abbotsford (the Property) from the defendant at auction on 15 June 2017 and entered into a contract for the sale of land (the Contract) that same day. The settlement date for the transfer of land was to be 15 March 2018. The property was commercially leased at the time and the Contract specified that the sale was of land on which a ‘going concern’ was being carried on. This had GST implications. The Contract specified that the purchase price was plus GST, but that GST was only payable if Special Condition 31 (SC31) applied.
The plaintiff requested an extension of the settlement date anticipating that there may be delay in arrival of funds from overseas. On 15 January 2018, the parties agreed terms for an extension of settlement until 15 May 2018 (extension agreement).
For a variety of reasons, as detailed below, settlement did not occur on 15 March 2018, nor during the period of the extension agreement. Consequently, on 12 June 2018, the defendant issued the plaintiff with a Notice of Default (Default Notice) pursuant to General Condition 27 of…
Continue reading K7 Developments Pty Ltd v Abbotsford Estates Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- K7 Developments Pty Ltd v Abbotsford Estates Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 422
- Case
- [2021] VSC 422
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the effect of an agreement to extend the settlement date at the purchaser's request, and whether this agreement governed the parties' rights and obligations. Additionally, the court needed to construe the terms of the contract to ascertain whether the purchaser was in default or required to pay interest when the settlement was delayed. The court considered the special and general conditions of the contract, the case law on delayed settlement, and the liability for GST when the vendor did not continue the going concern for the entire property.
The court found that the purchaser was not in default for requesting settlement on the original date, as the agreement to extend the settlement date at the purchaser's request governed the parties' rights and obligations. The court also determined that the purchaser was not required to pay interest to the vendor due to the delay in settlement. The court held that the vendor's failure to continue the going concern for the entire property resulted in a liability for GST. The court dismissed the vendor's counterclaim for damages arising from the delayed settlement.
The court ordered that the purchaser was not in default for requesting settlement on the original date, and that the purchaser was not required to pay interest to the vendor due to the delay in settlement. The court further ordered that the vendor's liability for GST was determined by their failure to continue the going concern for the entire property.
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.