Mario Casella & Sons Builders Pty Ltd v Duckworth

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

MARIO CASELLA & SONS BUILDERS PTY LTD -v- DUCKWORTH & ANOR [2005] WASC 245



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASC 245
Case No:CIV:1646/20051 NOVEMBER 2005
Coram:HASLUCK J15/11/05
24Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Caveat extended
B
PDF Version
Parties:MARIO CASELLA & SONS BUILDERS PTY LTD (ACN 008 862 431)
NEIL JAMES DUCKWORTH
REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Catchwords:

Caveats
Application to extend operation of caveat
Interest of purchaser under an uncompleted contract of sale
Effect of subject to purchase clause and special conditions as to subdivision
Nonfulfilment of conditions held to give rise to voidable contract
Whether vendor entitled to rescind contract
Purchaser held to have caveatable interest

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 137, s 138B, s 138C(2)

Case References:

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Corwest Management Pty Ltd [1978] WAR 129
Egan & Ors v Chugg [2005] WASC 170
Fay v Sheridan [1999] WASCA 61
Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418
Hamdan v Widodo & Anor [2004] WASC 123
Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22
Kuper v Keywest Constructions Pty Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 419
Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 407
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571
Plumor Pty Ltd v Handley (1996) 41 NSWLR 30
Porter v McDonald & Registrar of Titles [1984] WAR 271
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
Zieme v Gregory [1963] VR 214

Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
Depsun Pty Ltd v Tahore Holdings Pty Ltd [1990] ANZ ConvR 334
J & H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546
Kheng v Secola [2001] ANZ ConvR 118
Lohregger v Francis Broady Investment Corporation Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 920600; 19 November 1992
Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd; Turnbull v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634
Sulinmo Properties Pty Ltd v Maloney [1985] ANZ ConvR 25

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : MARIO CASELLA & SONS BUILDERS PTY LTD -v- DUCKWORTH & ANOR [2005] WASC 245 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 1 NOVEMBER 2005 DELIVERED : 15 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 1646 of 2005 BETWEEN : MARIO CASELLA & SONS BUILDERS PTY LTD (ACN 008 862 431)
    Plaintiff

    AND

    NEIL JAMES DUCKWORTH
    First Defendant

    REGISTRAR OF TITLES
    Second Defendant



Catchwords:

Caveats - Application to extend operation of caveat - Interest of purchaser under an uncompleted contract of sale - Effect of subject to purchase clause and special conditions as to subdivision - Nonfulfilment of conditions held to give rise to voidable contract - Whether vendor entitled to rescind contract - Purchaser held to have caveatable interest




Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 137, s 138B, s 138C(2)



(Page 2)

Result:

Caveat extended




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr R R Cywicki
    First Defendant : Mr A…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mario Casella & Sons Builders Pty Ltd v Duckworth and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2005] WASC 245
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mario Casella & Sons Builders Pty Ltd (plaintiff) sought an extension of a caveat lodged over a parcel of land which it had contracted to purchase from Neil James Duckworth (first defendant). The first defendant argued that the contract of sale had been terminated and that, accordingly, the plaintiff had no caveatable interest in the land. The court held that the contract of sale remained on foot because the first defendant had not exercised its entitlement to terminate the contract when it was entitled to do so and had, instead, allowed the contract to remain in force by its conduct. The court further held that the contract had not been brought to an end by operation of law because the special condition concerning the provision of water was a condition subsequent and not a condition precedent. The court also held that the plaintiff had a reasonably arguable case that the first defendant had not used his best endeavours to comply with the special condition and that, in those circumstances, the plaintiff had prospects of obtaining relief by way of specific performance. The court held that the plaintiff had a caveatable interest in the land and ordered that the operation of the caveat be extended.

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.