Reeves v O'Riley - [2013] QCA 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reeves v O’Riley [2013] QCA 229

PARTIES:

SUSAN FLORANCE REEVES (as Executrix of the will of GARY EDWARD PERRY deceased)
(appellant)
v
SYLVIA LOUISE O’RILEY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 533 of 2013
DC No 363 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 June 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Muir JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – AGREEMENTS CONTEMPLATING EXECUTION OF FORMAL DOCUMENT – WHERE CONCLUDED CONTRACT – where tenants in common corresponded through their solicitors with a view to the transfer of the interest of one to the other – where the proposed transferor died without having signed the transfer documents, leaving a will in which he devised his interest in the property to his son – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the letters exchanged constituted offer and acceptance – whether the letter from the transferor’s solicitors constituted a memorandum of the contract as required by s 59 of the Property Law Act – whether the transferor’s solicitor had authority to sign the letter

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 59

Daniels v Trefusis [1914] 1 Ch 788, cited
Di Biase v Rezek [1971] 1 NSWLR 735, cited
Duncan Properties Pty Ltd v Hunter [1991] 1 Qd R 101, cited
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72, cited
North v Loomes [1919] 1 Ch 378, cited
Pirie v Saunders (1961) 104 CLR 149; [1961] HCA 4, applied
Placer Development Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia (1969) 121 CLR 353; [1969] HCA 29, cited
Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251; [1941] 1 All ER 14, applied
Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd [1975] Ch 146; [1974] 2 WLR 176, cited
Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Anburn Pty Ltd (1989) 6 BPR 13,448, cited

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC, with A C Barlow, for the appellant
J C Bell QC, with A J Hockings, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bill Cooper & Associates for the appellant
Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the respondent

HOLMES JA: The appellant is the executrix of the will of Mr Garry Perry. She appeals against a declaration that letters from solicitors acting for Mr Perry and a response from the respondent’s solicitor collectively constituted a binding agreement for the transfer to the respondent of Mr Perry’s interest as tenant in common in a Townsville property, and against an order for specific performance of that agreement. The grounds of appeal are, in essence, that the primary judge erred in making these findings: that the respective pieces of correspondence could constitute an offer and acceptance amounting to a concluded agreement susceptible of…

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 Reeves v O'Riley

Details

AGLC: Reeves v O’Riley [2013] QCA 229
Case: [2013] QCA 229
Decision Date: 23 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reeves v O'Riley was a case involving a dispute between the parties over the transfer of an interest in property. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the trial judge correctly found that a binding contract had been formed between the parties for the transfer of one party's interest in a property to the other, and if the necessary formal requirements were met.

The court needed to decide if the correspondence between the parties, facilitated by their solicitors, constituted an offer and acceptance, forming a binding contract. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the letter from the transferor's solicitors was sufficient as a memorandum of the contract, as required by section 59 of the Property Law Act, and whether the transferor's solicitor had the authority to sign the letter. These legal issues were central to determining the enforceability of the contract for the transfer of property interest.

The court found that the correspondence between the parties, through their solicitors, did indeed constitute an offer and acceptance, forming a binding contract. The letter from the transferor's solicitors was deemed sufficient as the memorandum of the contract, satisfying the requirements of section 59 of the Property Law Act. Furthermore, the court held that the transferor's solicitor had the requisite authority to sign the letter. Based on these findings, the trial judge's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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.

CITATION:	Reeves v O’Riley [2013] QCA 229
PARTIES:	SUSAN FLORANCE REEVES (as Executrix of the will of GARY EDWARD PERRY deceased) (appellant) v SYLVIA LOUISE O’RILEY (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 533 of 2013 DC No 363 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 June 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS – AGREEMENTS CONTEMPLATING EXECUTION OF FORMAL DOCUMENT – WHERE CONCLUDED CONTRACT – where tenants in common corresponded through their solicitors with a view to the transfer of the interest of one to the other – where the proposed transferor died without having signed the transfer documents, leaving a will in which he devised his interest in the property to his son – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the letters exchanged constituted offer and acceptance – whether the letter from the transferor’s solicitors constituted a memorandum of the contract as required by s 59 of the Property Law Act – whether the transferor’s solicitor had authority to sign the letter Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 59 Daniels v Trefusis [1914] 1 Ch 788, cited Di Biase v Rezek [1971] 1 NSWLR 735, cited Duncan Properties Pty Ltd v Hunter [1991] 1 Qd R 101, cited Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72, cited North v Loomes [1919] 1 Ch 378, cited Pirie v Saunders (1961) 104 CLR 149; [1961] HCA 4, applied Placer Development Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia (1969) 121 CLR 353; [1969] HCA 29, cited Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251; [1941] 1 All ER 14, applied Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd [1975] Ch 146; [1974] 2 WLR 176, cited Twynam Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Anburn Pty Ltd (1989) 6 BPR 13,448, cited
COUNSEL:	A J H Morris QC, with A C Barlow, for the appellant J C Bell QC, with A J Hockings, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bill Cooper & Associates for the appellant Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the respondent