Mayne v Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd - [2008] WASCA 131

MAYNE -v- TWINBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD [2008] WASCA 131

Jurisdiction: SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Citation No: [2008] WASCA 131

Court: THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

Case No:      CACV:26/2007       Heard:          11 APRIL 2008
Coram:         BUSS JA
NEWNES AJA       Delivered:     27/06/08

No of pages: 16       Judgment Part:      1 of 1
Result:         Appeal dismissed
Category:     B

PDF Version
Parties: WILLIAM ERNEST MAYNE
JENNIFER MAY MAYNE
TERRY ERNEST BARTER
LINDA CHRISTINE BARTER
MAYNE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
LANSOFT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
TWINBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD

Catchwords:
Contracts
Liquor licensing
Contract for sale of hotel
Whether contract void
Contract subject to condition subsequent that liquor licence be transferred to purchaser
Whether s 84(2)(a) of Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA) requires that approval of transfer of liquor licence be condition precedent to formation of enforceable contract
Whether contractual condition complied with s 84(2)(a)
Effect of s 84(2)(a)

Legislation:
Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 84(2)(a)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C(1)

Case References:
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd v Mayne [2006] WASC 293

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION : MAYNE -v- TWINBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD [2008] WASCA 131

CORAM : BUSS JA

NEWNES AJA

HEARD : 11 APRIL 2008

DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2008

FILE NO/S : CACV 26 of 2007

BETWEEN : WILLIAM ERNEST MAYNE

JENNIFER MAY MAYNE
    TERRY ERNEST BARTER
    LINDA CHRISTINE BARTER
    MAYNE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
    LANSOFT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
    Appellants

AND

TWINBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MASTER SANDERSON

Citation : TWINBROOK CORPORATION PTY LTD -v- MAYNE & ORS [2006] WASC 293

File No : CIV 1616 of 2006

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Contracts - Liquor licensing - Contract for sale of hotel - Whether contract void - Contract subject to condition subsequent that liquor licence be transferred to purchaser - Whether s 84(2)(a) of Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA) requires that approval of transfer of liquor licence be condition precedent to formation of enforceable contract - Whether contractual condition complied with s 84(2)(a) - Effect of s 84(2)(a)

Legislation:

Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), s 84(2)(a)

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : Mr J C Curthoys
Respondent : Mr G R Hancy

Solicitors:

Appellants : Slee Anderson & Pidgeon
Respondent : Denis Meagher

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd v Mayne [2006] WASC 293

(Page 3)

1 BUSS JA: I agree with Newnes AJA.

2 NEWNES…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mayne v Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd 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: [2008] WASCA 131
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mayne v Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd was a dispute between the plaintiff, Mayne, and the defendant, Twinbrook Corporation Pty Ltd, regarding the validity of a contract for the sale of a hotel. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the court had to determine whether the contract was void due to a condition subsequent related to the transfer of a liquor licence. The court had to decide whether the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA) required that approval for the transfer of the liquor licence be a condition precedent to the formation of an enforceable contract, and whether the contractual condition complied with section 84(2)(a) of the Act. Additionally, the court considered the effect of section 84(2)(a) on the contractual arrangement.

The court examined the legal framework established by the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA) and found that section 84(2)(a) did not mandate that the approval of the transfer of the liquor licence be a condition precedent to the formation of an enforceable contract. Instead, it required that such approval be obtained before the transfer of the licence. The court concluded that the contract was not void because the condition subsequent had been complied with in accordance with the statute. The condition was not a condition precedent but rather a condition subsequent that needed to be fulfilled before the transfer of the liquor licence could proceed.

Following the reasoning above, the court held that the contractual condition related to the transfer of the liquor licence was not a barrier to the enforceability of the contract. The court found that the condition subsequent had been satisfied as required by the Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (WA), and thus the contract remained valid and enforceable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, confirming the enforceability of the contract for the sale of the hotel. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.