Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd v Anketell - [1999] NSWSC 304

CITATION: PACIFIC RIM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v Mary ANKETELL [1999] NSWSC 304

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

FILE NUMBER(S): 12508/98

HEARING DATE(S): 9 November 1998

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 April 1999

PARTIES :

Plaintiff: Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd
Defendant: Mary Anketell

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 41 of 1996

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mr B. Bright, Magistrate

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: B. Kinsella
Defendant: D. Murr

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Attwood Marshall
Defendant: Peter Brooke & Company

CATCHWORDS: Sale of Land, option, "void", estoppel against statute

ACTS CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919 s66ZG

DECISION: Appeal allowed.

11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No: 12508 of 1998

Friday, 9 April 1999

HULME J

PACIFIC RIM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD -v- Mary ANKETELL
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These Reasons concern an appeal by way of stated case from the decision of a Magistrate dismissing a claim by Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd, the Plaintiff in both the Local and this Court seeking recovery of a sum of $30,000.00 paid pursuant to an option agreement. So far as is presently relevant the agreement provides:-
“OPTION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND .
This Agreement is made on the 22nd day of July 1994 BETWEEN MARY ANKETELL of 18 Queen Street, Fingal Head New South Wales (“Optioner”) of the One Part AND PACIFIC RIM DEVELOPMENTS PTY. LTD. … (“The Optionee”) of the Other Part.

WHEREBY it is agreed as follows:
OPTION CONSIDERATION AND PROPERTY
1. In consideration of the sum of Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to be paid by the Optionee to the Optioner in the following manner, namely One thousand dollars $1,000.00 upon the execution hereof and the sum of Twenty nine thousand dollars ($29,000.00) within 30 days thereafter, the Optionee (or its nominee) shall have the option of purchasing with vacant possession all that land described in the schedule hereto and together with the improvements erected thereon (together “the property”) upon the terms and conditions contained in the Contract for Sale of Land annexed hereto and marked with the letter “A”.
PERIOD AND EXERCISE
2. Such option shall (if exercised) be exercised by notice in writing to the Optioner on or before the date being twelve months from the date hereof and such notice shall be delivered personally to the Optioner or sent by prepaid registered post addressed to her at her last known place of abode and if by post shall be posted at such time that in the ordinary course of post it would be delivered at such address on or before the aid date being 12 months from the date hereof. A copy of such notice shall in like fashion be sent to the Optioner’s solicitor or solicitors Messrs Peter Brooke & Co of 4 Seaview Street, Kingscliff..
OPTION FEE AND PURCHASE PRICE
5. It is declared that the payment of the said sum of Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) as consideration for the option hereby granted by the Optioner to…

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 Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd v Anketell

Details

AGLC: Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd v Anketell [1999] NSWSC 304
Case: [1999] NSWSC 304
Decision Date: 9 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Anketell, the defendant. The dispute centred around the validity of an option to purchase land, which the plaintiff sought to enforce. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff claimed that the option was enforceable and sought specific performance, while the defendant argued that the option was void and unenforceable.

The court was required to determine whether the option to purchase land was valid and enforceable under the law. The plaintiff contended that the option was enforceable and sought specific performance, arguing that the defendant was estopped from relying on the option being void. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the option was void and unenforceable, and that estoppel against statute did not apply in this case.

The court examined the terms of the option and found that it was indeed void due to a failure to comply with the statutory requirements for options to purchase land. However, the court also considered the doctrine of estoppel against statute, which prevents a party from relying on a statute or a provision within it if it would be unconscionable for them to do so. The court held that the plaintiff had acted in reliance on the option and that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to rely on the voidness of the option. As such, the court found the option to be enforceable and ordered specific performance.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant transfer the land to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the option. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff for the proceedings.

Orders