Roberts & Anor v Bass - [2002] HCATrans 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S258 of 2001

B e t w e e n -
GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS PTY LIMITED
First Appellant
GRAHAM BARCLAY DISTRIBUTORS PTY LIMITED
Second Appellant
and
GRANT RYAN, SCOTT CALLAGHAN, KEVIN GOWER, DAVID HOLNESS, GEOFFREY BENNETT, BRYAN HOCKING AND BROSOW HARDY
First Respondents
GREAT LAKES COUNCIL
Second Respondent
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Third Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S259 of 2001

B e t w e e n -
GRANT RYAN
Appellant
and
GREAT LAKES COUNCIL
First Respondent
GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent
GRAHAM BARCLAY DISTRIBUTORS PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Fourth Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S261 of 2001

B e t w e e n -
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Appellant
and
GRANT RYAN, SCOTT CALLAGHAN, KEVIN GOWER, DAVID HOLNESS, GEOFFREY BENNETT, BRYAN HOCKING AND BROSOW HARDY
First Respondents
GREAT LAKES COUNCIL
Second Respondent
GRAHAM BARCLAY OYSTERS PTY LIMITED

Third Respondent

GRAHAM BARCLAY DISTRIBUTORS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CLIFT OYSTERS PTY LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

M.W. & E.A. SCIACCA PTY LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

TADEVEN PTY LIMITED

Seventh Respondent

THE OYSTER FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES PTY LIMITED

Eighth Respondent

R.A. KING (WHOLESALE) PTY LTD

Ninth Respondent

MANETTAS LIMITED

Tenth Respondent

SHONID PTY LIMITED (TRADING AS “TIM & TERRY OYSTER SUPPLY PTY LIMITED”)

Eleventh Respondent

VICTORIAN FROZEN FOOD DISTRIBUTORS PTY LIMITED (TRADING AS “RICHMOND OYSTERS”)

Twelfth Respondent

SMITHS OYSTER SERVICE PTY LIMITED
Thirteenth Respondent
GEORGES OYSTERS PTY LIMITED
Fourteenth Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 13 MARCH 2002, AT 10.16 AM

(Continued from 12/3/02)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Tobin.

MR TOBIN: As your Honours please. May I deal briefly with the pleading issue that is raised against us by the State.

KIRBY J: Was it raised in the Full Court or not?

MR TOBIN: It was raised in the Full Court but not, as it were, successfully. I think I can explain to your Honours what lies behind that. At page 111 of the first appeal book – and your Honours have been taken to this – in paragraph 49 Mr Ryan’s case was to plead that the EPA owed duties of care to him and the represented persons:

(a) to take steps to ensure that the –

Council –

did not pollute the Wallis Lakes region by its sewerage treatment and depot facilities;
(b) to take steps to ensure that private land owners or users of the waters of the Wallis Lakes region did not pollute the Wallis Lakes region;
(c) to monitor in conjunction with the First Respondent –

the Council –

the quality of the water and the environment in the Wallis Lakes region.

The “Particulars” in (a), (b) and (c) relate to general and not to specific instances of pollution in the Wallis Lake area. On…

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 Roberts & Anor v Bass

Details

AGLC: Roberts & Anor v Bass [2002] HCATrans 109
Case: [2002] HCATrans 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roberts and another (the appellants) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a clause in a contract for the sale of land, specifically whether the purchasers were entitled to terminate the contract due to the vendor's failure to provide a certificate of title by the stipulated date. The Supreme Court had found in favour of the vendor, holding that the purchasers had not validly terminated the contract.

The High Court was required to determine whether the purchasers' purported termination of the contract was effective. This involved considering whether the vendor's obligation to provide a certificate of title by a particular date was a condition of the contract, the breach of which entitled the purchasers to terminate, or whether it was a term that, if breached, only gave rise to a claim for damages. The court also had to consider the effect of the purchasers' conduct following the vendor's failure to provide the certificate.

The High Court, by majority, held that the purchasers were not entitled to terminate the contract. The majority reasoned that the clause in question did not establish a condition precedent to the vendor's performance or a condition of the contract in the strict sense. Instead, it was interpreted as a term that imposed a contractual obligation on the vendor, the breach of which sounded in damages. The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising the need to ascertain the parties' objective intentions from the contract as a whole. The purchasers' subsequent conduct, which indicated an intention to proceed with the sale despite the delay, was also considered relevant in determining whether they had affirmed the contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders