Rolls v Radford - [2012] QSC 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rolls v Radford & Anor [2012] QSC 92

PARTIES:

MARK ADRIAN ROLLS
(Plaintiff)
v
LINDA REGINA RADFORD
(First defendant)
and
CLAUDIA MARIA SCUPIN
(Second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

11830/09

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6–9 February 2012

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

1.   There be judgment for the plaintiff.

2.   It is declared that the Contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff.

3.   It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $50,000 paid as deposit.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – construction of terms of Contract – where Contract to purchase a proposed lot – special condition that Contract was conditional on registration of a subdivision of an existing lot and creation of the proposed lot – where Contract entered into with registered owners of the existing lot – where subdivision was registered with registered owners continuing to be registered as owners of the new lot – where each owner transferred their respective interest so that each became the sole owner of a new lot – where cl 7.3 of the Contract provided that at the date for completion the vendor would be the registered owner of the Land the subject of the Contract – where Contract provided a right of termination for breach of that clause – whether Contract ambiguous – whether Contract breached

CONTRACT – RECTIFICATION – whether written instrument gave effect to the common intention of the parties

Australian Gypsum Limited v Hume Steel Limited (1930) 45 CLR 54
Bennett & Ors v Stewart & Anor [2008] QSC 20
Fowler v Fowler (1859) 4 De G & J 250
Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 336
Mediservices Clinics Pty Ltd v Health 24 Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 198
MSW Property Pty Ltd v Law Mortgages Qld Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 487
Pukallus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447
Rands Developments Pty Ltd v Davis (1975) 6 ALR 631
Savoy Invest Queensland Pty Ltd v Global Nominees [2008] QSC 56
Zanee Pty Ltd v CG Maloney Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 105

COUNSEL:

R Cameron for the plaintiff
G Coveney for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Gill & Lane for the plaintiff
Walsh & Partners for the defendants

PHILIPPIDES J:

The plaintiff, Mark Rolls, brings proceedings seeking the return of a deposit of $50,000 paid pursuant to a Contract for the purchase of a property from the first defendant, Linda Radford, and the second defendant, Claudia Scupin. The first defendant in turn seeks an order for the forfeit of the deposit and for damages totalling $120,000. In the alternative, the first defendant also seeks an order for rectification.

Background facts

On 5 November 2008, Rolls entered into the Contract for the purchase from Radford and Scupin of land described as proposed Lot 41, on the plan attached as Annexure A being part of Lot 23 on GTP 107136, County…

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 Rolls v Radford

Details

AGLC: Rolls v Radford [2012] QSC 92
Case: [2012] QSC 92
Decision Date: 16 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rolls v Radford, the dispute involved the termination of a contract for the purchase of a proposed lot. The special condition of the contract stated that it was contingent on the registration of a subdivision of an existing lot, leading to the creation of the proposed lot. The contract was executed with the registered owners of the existing lot, who continued to be listed as the owners of the new lot after the subdivision was registered. Each owner then transferred their respective interest, resulting in sole ownership of the new lot. Clause 7.3 of the contract stipulated that the vendor would be the registered owner of the land at the completion date. The contract also included a right of termination for breach of this clause. The primary issues were whether the contract was ambiguous and whether it had been breached.

The court found that the contract was not ambiguous and that the defendants had indeed breached it by not becoming the sole registered owners of the land by the completion date. The court also ruled that the written instrument accurately reflected the common intention of the parties. As a result, the contract was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff. The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff, declared the contract's lawful termination, and ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the $50,000 deposit paid.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be judgment for the plaintiff.

2. It is declared that the Contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff.

3. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $50,000 paid as deposit.

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:	Rolls v Radford & Anor [2012] QSC 92
PARTIES:	MARK ADRIAN ROLLS (Plaintiff) v LINDA REGINA RADFORD (First defendant) and CLAUDIA MARIA SCUPIN (Second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	11830/09
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6–9 February 2012
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	1. There be judgment for the plaintiff. 2. It is declared that the Contract between the plaintiff and the defendants was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff. 3. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $50,000 paid as deposit.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – construction of terms of Contract – where Contract to purchase a proposed lot – special condition that Contract was conditional on registration of a subdivision of an existing lot and creation of the proposed lot – where Contract entered into with registered owners of the existing lot – where subdivision was registered with registered owners continuing to be registered as owners of the new lot – where each owner transferred their respective interest so that each became the sole owner of a new lot – where cl 7.3 of the Contract provided that at the date for completion the vendor would be the registered owner of the Land the subject of the Contract – where Contract provided a right of termination for breach of that clause – whether Contract ambiguous – whether Contract breached CONTRACT – RECTIFICATION – whether written instrument gave effect to the common intention of the parties Australian Gypsum Limited v Hume Steel Limited (1930) 45 CLR 54 Bennett & Ors v Stewart & Anor [2008] QSC 20 Fowler v Fowler (1859) 4 De G & J 250 Maralinga Pty Ltd v Major Enterprises Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 336 Mediservices Clinics Pty Ltd v Health 24 Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 198 MSW Property Pty Ltd v Law Mortgages Qld Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 487 Pukallus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447 Rands Developments Pty Ltd v Davis (1975) 6 ALR 631 Savoy Invest Queensland Pty Ltd v Global Nominees [2008] QSC 56 Zanee Pty Ltd v CG Maloney Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 105
COUNSEL:	R Cameron for the plaintiff G Coveney for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Gill & Lane for the plaintiff Walsh & Partners for the defendants