McCourt v Cranston

Case [2012] WASCA 60

McCOURT -v- CRANSTON [2012] WASCA 60



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASCA 60
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:39/20091 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA		19/03/12
23Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:DANIEL PATRICK REDDEN McCOURT
RUTH ELLEN McCOURT
SHARNE MARY CRANSTON

Catchwords:
Contract
Sale of land
Whether contract subject to a condition of performance
Land sold by mortgagee while vendor seeking decree of specific performance
Whether damages could be awarded in lieu of specific performance

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd [1987] HCA 15; (1987) 162 CLR 549
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd [1973] HCA 36; (1973) 129 CLR 99
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali [2002] 1 AC 251
BP Refinery (Construction) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410
Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Tooth & Co Ltd (1985) 6 IPR 319
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; (2009) 76 NSWLR 603
International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Ltd [2008] HCA 3; (2008) 234 CLR 151
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [No 1] [1998] 1 WLR 896
Johnson v Agnew [1980] AC 367
Manufacturers' Mutual Insurance Ltd v Withers (1988) 5 ANZ Ins Cases 60-853
MBF Investments Pty Ltd v Nolan [2011] VSCA 114
Meehan v Jones [1982] HCA 52; (1982) 149 CLR 571
North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v The State of Queensland [1996] HCA 2; (1996) 185 CLR 595
Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451
Patman v Fletcher's Fotographics Pty Ltd (1984) 6 IR 471
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 29; (1982) 149 CLR 537
Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council [2002] HCA 5; (2002) 240 CLR 45
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 51; (1979) 144 CLR 596
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45
Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2005] HCA 17; (2005) 221 CLR 522

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

Continue reading McCourt v Cranston

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McCourt v Cranston [2012] WASCA 60
Case
[2012] WASCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in McCourt v Cranston was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary dispute involved the enforceability of a contract for the sale of land. The vendor, McCourt, sought specific performance of the contract, while the purchaser, Cranston, argued that the contract was subject to a condition of performance. Additionally, the mortgagee, who had sold the property, contended that damages could be awarded in lieu of specific performance.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the contract for the sale of land was conditional upon performance and whether damages could be awarded instead of specific performance. The Court had to determine if the contract was conditional, which would allow for damages, or if it was absolute, which would necessitate specific performance. Furthermore, the Court needed to assess if the mortgagee, having sold the property, could still claim damages instead of enforcing specific performance.

The Court concluded that the contract was not conditional but absolute, thereby requiring specific performance. It was determined that the mortgagee's sale of the property did not entitle the purchaser to damages instead of enforcing the contract. The Court found that the mortgagee's actions did not release the purchaser from their obligations under the contract. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision that specific performance was the appropriate remedy, and damages were not available.

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.