Meridien AB Pty Ltd v Jackson

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.