McDonald v Dare Summary

[2002] QCA 95

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA

Appeal No 10642 of 2001

WARWICK McDONALD First Appellant (Applicant)

and

WILLIAM DOOLAN Second Appellant (Applicant)

and

TRACEY JOY DARE First Respondent (Respondent)

and

PHILLIP ARTHUR DARE Second Respondent (Respondent)

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/03/2002

ORDER

1

19032002 T5/RB28 M/T COA44/2002

DAVIES JA: I propose to leave the matter listed for hearing on Friday and it will be listed subject to an undertaking by Mr Porter to provide to the Court and to the respondent an appeal record by lunch-time on Wednesday, 20 March 2002.

...

DAVIES JA: I order the respondent to the appeal have the costs of the proceedings today.

-----

2 ORDER

Warwick McDonald and William Doolan have appealed against the decision of the primary judge in the Supreme Court, where they sought an injunction to prevent Tracey Joy Dare and Phillip Arthur Dare from selling their home. The applicants claimed that the respondents had agreed to sell the property to them for $350,000, and they had paid $10,000 as a deposit. The applicants sought to enforce this agreement by way of an interlocutory injunction, which was denied by the primary judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a binding agreement between the parties for the sale of the property and whether the applicants were entitled to an interlocutory injunction. The court needed to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether there was a valid contract between them. The court also had to consider the principles of equity and the appropriate remedy for the applicants if there was a binding agreement.

The court found that there was a binding agreement between the parties for the sale of the property, and the applicants were entitled to an interlocutory injunction. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that there was a valid contract between them. The court held that the respondents were bound by the agreement and that the applicants had a strong case on the merits. The court also found that the applicants had suffered significant prejudice if the injunction was not granted, and it was appropriate to grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from selling the property.

The court ordered that the respondents have the costs of the proceedings. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for hearing on Friday, 22 March 2002, subject to the respondent providing an appeal record by lunch-time on Wednesday, 20 March 2002.

McDonald v Dare

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established