Menniti v Winn - [2008] QCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Menniti & Ors v Winn & Anor [2008] QCA 66

PARTIES:

LUCIANO MENNITI (as Trustee)
(first plaintiff/first appellant)
SALVATORE MENNITI and PASQUALINA MENNITI
(second plaintiffs/second appellants)
v
SHARON ANN WINN as Administrator for HUO YEN FRANCIS CHAN and AMY CHAN KUNG WAI YING
(defendants/respondents)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7475 of 2007
SC No 4440 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 February 2008

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellants to pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – where s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997(Qld) requires that a seller of a lot in a community titles scheme provide a disclosure statement – where the appellants argued a different construction to s 206 from that of the primary judge – whether the appellants’ construction was consistent with the grammatical or literal meaning of the words of s 206

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – IN GENERAL – where the appellants purported to terminate a sale of land contract due to alleged breaches of s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) – whether there was non- compliance with s 206 by the respondents entitling the appellants to terminate the contract pursuant to s 206(7) of the Act

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A(1)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 4(a), s 4(f), s 4(g), s 206, s 207, s 208, s 209
Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 143, s 144, s 145, s 146,
s 149

Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33, cited
Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85; [1997] HCA 53, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1; [1991] HCA 21, cited
Smits v Tabone; Blue Coast Yeppoon Pty Ltd v Tabone[2007] QCA 337, cited

COUNSEL:

C J Carrigan for the appellants
P L O’Shea SC, with J W Peden for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

PHV Law Solicitors for the appellants
Flower & Hart Lawyers for the respondents

KEANE JA: I agree with the reasons of Muir JA, and with the orders proposed by his Honour. Because the making of an order for indemnity costs is somewhat out of the ordinary in terms of the practice of the Court,[1] I propose to state my reasons for concluding that the appellants' argument is so…

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.

Continue reading Menniti v Winn

Details

AGLC: Menniti v Winn [2008] QCA 66
Case: [2008] QCA 66
Decision Date: 28 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Menniti, brought an appeal against the respondents, Winn, in relation to a dispute concerning the sale of a lot in a community titles scheme. The case revolved around whether the respondents had complied with statutory obligations under section 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). Menniti argued that the respondents' non-compliance with section 206 entitled them to terminate the sale of land contract. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of section 206 and whether the respondents' actions constituted a breach warranting contract termination. The court was also required to determine if Menniti's construction of section 206 was consistent with its grammatical or literal meaning.

The court examined the literal and grammatical meaning of section 206 of the Act, which mandates that a seller must provide a disclosure statement. Menniti contended that the respondents' failure to provide such a statement justified contract termination. However, the court found that the respondents had indeed supplied the required disclosure statement, refuting Menniti's claims of non-compliance. Consequently, the court held that Menniti's interpretation of section 206 was not consistent with its literal and grammatical meaning. The court concluded that the respondents' actions did not breach section 206, and therefore, Menniti's termination of the contract was unjustified.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered Menniti to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the literal and grammatical interpretation of statutory provisions, particularly in the context of enforcing contractual rights and obligations. The outcome emphasised that parties must ensure strict compliance with statutory requirements to avoid unjust contract terminations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellants to pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis

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.

CITATION:	Menniti & Ors v Winn & Anor [2008] QCA 66
PARTIES:	LUCIANO MENNITI (as Trustee) (first plaintiff/first appellant) SALVATORE MENNITI and PASQUALINA MENNITI (second plaintiffs/second appellants) v SHARON ANN WINN as Administrator for HUO YEN FRANCIS CHAN and AMY CHAN KUNG WAI YING (defendants/respondents)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7475 of 2007 SC No 4440 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 February 2008
JUDGES:	Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Appellants to pay the respondents’ costs on an indemnity basis
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – where s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997(Qld) requires that a seller of a lot in a community titles scheme provide a disclosure statement – where the appellants argued a different construction to s 206 from that of the primary judge – whether the appellants’ construction was consistent with the grammatical or literal meaning of the words of s 206 STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES – BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY – IN GENERAL – where the appellants purported to terminate a sale of land contract due to alleged breaches of s 206 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) – whether there was non- compliance with s 206 by the respondents entitling the appellants to terminate the contract pursuant to s 206(7) of the Act Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A(1) Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 4(a), s 4(f), s 4(g), s 206, s 207, s 208, s 209 Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 143, s 144, s 145, s 146, s 149 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33, cited Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (1997) 191 CLR 85; [1997] HCA 53, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28, cited Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1; [1991] HCA 21, cited Smits v Tabone; Blue Coast Yeppoon Pty Ltd v Tabone[2007] QCA 337, cited
COUNSEL:	C J Carrigan for the appellants P L O’Shea SC, with J W Peden for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	PHV Law Solicitors for the appellants Flower & Hart Lawyers for the respondents