Majet v Goggin and Miller

The case of Majet v Goggin and Miller involved a dispute over the entitlement to a deposit paid under a real estate contract. The applicant, Majet, sought the return of the deposit paid by Herbert Ratcliffe Brett-Hall, a buyer who subsequently became bankrupt. The sellers, Goggin and Miller, argued that they were entitled to retain the deposit as a result of the buyer’s bankruptcy and the subsequent disclaimer of the contract by the buyer's trustees. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the application of the proviso to s 133(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the consequences of a disclaimer of a real estate contract by the trustees for a bankrupt buyer. The court had to determine whether the disclaimer resulted in the buyer being in default of the contract and, if so, whether the proviso to s 133(2) applied to allow the sellers to retain the deposit. Additionally, the court needed to examine the implications of the disclaimer on the parties’ entitlements under the contract.

The court found that the trustees for the bankrupt buyer had the right to disclaim the real estate contract, which resulted in the buyer being in default. However, the court held that the proviso to s 133(2) did not apply in this case. The court reasoned that the proviso only allows the sellers to retain the deposit if the buyer is in default and the sellers have not repudiated the contract. Since the disclaimer by the trustees was not considered a repudiation by the buyer, the proviso did not apply, and the sellers were not entitled to retain the deposit. Consequently, the applicants were declared entitled to the return of the deposit.

The court dismissed the application of the first respondents and declared that the applicants were entitled to the deposit paid by Herbert Ratcliffe Brett-Hall. The deposit was to be paid to the applicants’ solicitors, and the parties were given an opportunity to agree on costs or to notify the court if they wished to proceed with a costs hearing.