Piety Developments Pty Ltd v Cumberland City Council (No 3)

Piety Developments Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Cumberland City Council in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking a declaration that the Council had entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the sale of certain land. The central dispute arose from the tender process for the sale of land owned by the Council, where Piety was one of the unsuccessful applicants. Following the tender process, the Council invited the unsuccessful applicants, including Piety, to submit their best and final offer. The Council subsequently passed a resolution accepting Piety’s offer. Shortly after, the Council gave notice of a motion to rescind the resolution, but unsigned minutes of the meeting were published on the Council’s website, and no correspondence was sent to Piety regarding the acceptance. The minutes were later confirmed by the Council.

The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the Council's resolution constituted a valid acceptance of Piety's offer, and if so, whether this acceptance was effectively communicated to Piety. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the Council's acceptance complied with the requirements of writing under section 54A of the Conveyancing Act. The Court had to examine whether the note or memorandum of the contract was properly executed and whether the mayor, who signed the minutes as chairperson, was lawfully authorised to do so.

The Court found that the Council's acceptance of Piety’s offer was not effectively communicated, as no formal correspondence was sent to Piety, and the unsigned minutes published online did not constitute a valid communication of acceptance. The Court further held that the acceptance did not comply with the statutory requirement for a written contract under section 54A of the Conveyancing Act, as the note or memorandum of the contract was not executed in the manner prescribed by law. Consequently, the Court ruled that no valid contract was formed between Piety and the Council for the sale of the land. The Court made a declaration that no contract for the sale of land existed between the parties.