Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd

In the matter of Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Bensons Property Group Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on the interpretation and enforcement of a development management agreement. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Key Infrastructure Australia, sought to enforce certain terms of the agreement, including a specific condition that a planning permit would be issued by a certain date. The defendant, Bensons Property Group, argued that they had elected to appeal the planning permit to VCAT, thereby fulfilling their contractual obligations, and that the permit should be granted. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had not properly exercised the appeal and that the VCAT's decision to grant the permit did not satisfy the contractual term.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had indeed elected to appeal the permit as stipulated in the agreement, and if not, whether the VCAT's decision to grant the permit constituted compliance with the term. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the contract implied terms of good faith and co-operation, and whether the defendant was estopped from relying on the strict wording of the agreement. The court found that the defendant did not elect to appeal the planning permit to VCAT as required by the contract. Furthermore, while a duty of co-operation was implied in the contract, the court did not find an implied duty of good faith. The defendant was held to have breached the duty of co-operation, entitling the plaintiff to nominal damages. The court also ruled that neither conventional nor equitable estoppel applied, meaning the defendant was not estopped from relying on the strict terms of the contract.

The court concluded that the defendant had failed to comply with the term of the agreement concerning the planning permit, and that the VCAT's decision did not satisfy the term. As such, the defendant had breached the contract. The court awarded nominal damages to the plaintiff for the breach of the duty of co-operation. The final orders of the court were that the defendant was liable for the nominal damages and that the parties were to bear their own costs of the proceedings.