Profile Events Pty Ltd v West Beach Trust - [2010] SADC 52

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
PROFILE EVENTS PTY LTD v WEST BEACH TRUST
[2010] SADC 52
Judgment of His Honour Judge Burley
14 April 2010
CONTRACTS
FORMATION OF LEASEHOLD - AGREEMENT TO GRANT LEASE
Plaintiff sued for specific performance and damages for breach of an alleged agreement to grant a lease in respect of commercial premises owned by the defendant. Extensive negotiations between the parties both before and after the plaintiff entered into occupation of the premises - whether concluded and final agreement reached by the time occupation taken - nature and intent of agreement reached - effect of statutory provisions on agreement - Held: final agreement not reached.
Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 S20B, referred to.
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631; Kriketos v Livschitz [2009] NSWCA 96; Symbion Medical Centre Operations Pty Ltd v Thomco (No 2113) Pty Ltd (2009) 103 SASR 354; Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribus (2004) 218 CLR 451; TOLL (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; Sinclair, Scott & Co Ltd v Naughton (1929) 43 CLR 310; Allen v Carbone (1975) 132 CLR 528; Summit Properties Pty Ltd v Comserv (No 784) Pty Ltd (1981) 2 BPR 9173; Arjay Investments Pty Ltd v Morrison's Outdoor Catering Pty Ltd Unreported BC 9504537; Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth (1989) 18 NSWLR 540, applied.
Lezabar Pty Ltd v Hogan (1989) 4 BPR 9498, considered.

PROFILE EVENTS PTY LTD v WEST BEACH TRUST
[2010] SADC 52

The plaintiff claims declaratory relief, specific performance and damages in respect of an alleged agreement entered into between the parties in about late November, early December 2001 whereby the defendant agreed to grant a lease to the plaintiff in respect of land at West Beach.
The defendant denies that the alleged agreement for lease was entered into on the terms contended for by the plaintiff. The defendant’s case is that, in mid 2001, it called for expressions of interest in respect of a proposed lease of premises owned by it called the “Woolshed”. A Mr Friebe and a Mr Davies expressed interest in taking a lease, negotiations ensued and, by 1 November 2001, after an exchange of correspondence between the parties, the defendant had agreed to grant a licence to the plaintiff (incorporated on 26 October 2001) to occupy the Woolshed. By the 3^rd of December 2001 the defendant permitted the plaintiff to take exclusive possession of the Woolshed pending agreement by the parties of the terms to be included in a written lease. According to the defendant, final agreement in respect of the terms to be included in the written lease has never been reached.
The plaintiff has been in occupation of the premises since 3 December 2001. Although the parties…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Profile Events Pty Ltd v West Beach Trust 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: [2010] SADC 52
Decision Date: 14 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Profile Events Pty Ltd, brought an action against the defendant, West Beach Trust, seeking specific performance and damages for breach of an alleged agreement to grant a lease of commercial premises. The plaintiff had entered into occupation of the premises in reliance on an agreement to grant a lease, which was the subject of extensive negotiations between the parties. The defendant contested the existence of a concluded and final agreement, arguing that the negotiations had not reached a point of mutual assent necessary for the formation of a binding contract. The court was required to determine whether a binding agreement to grant a lease existed, the nature of that agreement, and the effect of statutory provisions on the enforceability of the agreement.

The court examined the documentary and testimonial evidence to determine whether the parties had reached a concluded and final agreement. It considered the terms of the alleged agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the legal principles governing the formation of contracts. The court found that while there was a series of communications and proposals between the parties, there was no evidence of a final and binding agreement to grant a lease. The negotiations were ongoing, and the terms of the lease had not been finally agreed upon. The court held that the plaintiff had not established the existence of a binding contract, and therefore, the plaintiff's claims for specific performance and damages were dismissed.

The court's reasoning was based on the absence of clear evidence of mutual assent between the parties. It found that the parties had not reached a point of final agreement on the essential terms of the lease, and that the negotiations were still in progress. The court also considered the effect of statutory provisions on the enforceability of the agreement, but found that these provisions did not alter the fundamental requirement of mutual assent in contract formation. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, and it provided a clear explanation of the reasons for its conclusion.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for specific performance and damages, and made no order as to costs. The court's decision was final and binding, and it provided guidance for future negotiations and agreements in similar circumstances.

Orders