Meridien AB Pty Ltd v Jackson

Link copied
Case Copied 41 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Meridien AB Pty Ltd & Anor v Jackson & Ors [2013] QCA 121

PARTIES:

MERIDIEN AB PTY LTD
ACN 101 370 772
(first appellant)
MERIDIEN AIRLIE BEACH PTY LTD
ACN 101 370 763
(second appellant)
v
RAYMOND JOHN JACKSON as trustee for the JACKSON FAMILY TRUST
(first respondent)
HORSESHOE (WA) PTY LTD as trustee for the SAD TRUST
(second respondent)
RAYMOND JOHN JACKSON
(third respondent)
SUZANNE LOUISE TEDESCO
(fourth respondent)
DARRYL ADRIAN TEDESCO
(fifth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8766 of 2012
SC No 5714 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

The appeal be allowed.1.   

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the orders made on 14 September 2012 be set aside.2.   

The application filed by the respondents on 5 March 2012 be dismissed.3.   

The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application and of this appeal.4.   

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – PARTICULAR CASES – where, at relevant times, s 27 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) allowed a purchaser to avoid a contract for the sale of land if the vendor had not given it a registrable instrument of transfer within three and a half years – where the primary judge held the language of s 27 to be “clear and unambiguous” and refused to read an exception into the section – where the primary judge derived support for his construction from the Explanatory Notes to the amending Act – where the appellants submit that a purchaser who wrongly refuses to attend settlement and receive a registrable instrument of transfer does not obtain a right to avoid a contract – where the appellants place particular reliance on the principle of statutory interpretation that courts will resist an interpretation that will permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong – whether, on the proper construction of s 27, a purchaser who wrongfully refuses to attend settlement and receive a registrable instrument of transfer obtains a right to avoid the contract

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld), s 2(a), s 27
Sustainable Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (Qld), s 37

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41, considered
Allina Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 28 FCR 203; [1991] FCA 78, cited
Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1; [1990] HCA 24, cited
Buswell v Goodwin [1971] 1 WLR 92, considered
Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross (2012) 87…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meridien AB Pty Ltd v Jackson 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
[2013] QCA 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Meridien AB Pty Ltd v Jackson was brought against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had dismissed the appeal of Meridien AB Pty Ltd against the orders of the District Court. The dispute centred around the interpretation of section 27 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld), which allowed a purchaser to avoid a contract for the sale of land if the vendor had not provided a registrable instrument of transfer within three and a half years. The primary judge had held that the language of section 27 was clear and unambiguous, refusing to read an exception into the section, and derived support from the Explanatory Notes to the amending Act. The appellants argued that a purchaser who wrongly refuses to attend settlement and receive a registrable instrument of transfer does not obtain a right to avoid a contract, relying on the principle of statutory interpretation that courts will resist an interpretation that will permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong.

The legal issues before the court were whether, on the proper construction of section 27, a purchaser who wrongfully refuses to attend settlement and receive a registrable instrument of transfer obtains a right to avoid the contract. The appellants contended that the primary judge had erred in holding that section 27 was clear and unambiguous and in failing to apply the principle of statutory interpretation that courts will resist an interpretation that will permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong. The respondents argued that the primary judge’s interpretation of section 27 was correct and that the principle relied upon by the appellants did not apply in this case. The court had to determine whether the primary judge's interpretation of section 27 was correct and whether the principle of statutory interpretation relied upon by the appellants applied in this case.

The court found that the primary judge had erred in holding that section 27 was clear and unambiguous and in failing to apply the principle of statutory interpretation that courts will resist an interpretation that will permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong. The court held that the primary judge had failed to consider the principle of statutory interpretation that courts will resist an interpretation that will permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong, and that this principle applied in this case. The court held that a purchaser who wrongfully refuses to attend settlement and receive a registrable instrument of transfer does not obtain a right to avoid the contract. The appeal was allowed, the orders made on 14 September 2012 were set aside, the application filed by the respondents on 5 March 2012 was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants’ costs of the application and of this appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed.1.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the orders made on 14 September 2012 be set aside.2.

The application filed by the respondents on 5 March 2012 be dismissed.3.

The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of the application and of this appeal.4.

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.