Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd v Brightman - [2024] QCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd v Brightman [2024] QCA 147

PARTIES:

ROYAL PINES PROJECTS PTY LTD
ACN 118 164 999 ATF BRISBANE CREDITS TRUST
(appellant)
v
ADAM BRIGHTMAN
(first respondent/not a party to the appeal)
JODIE BRIGHTMAN
(second respondent/not a party to the appeal)
MARY MAGGIE MAE CRUZ
(third respondent/not a party to the appeal)
RAYMOND CAVITE CRUZ
(fourth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
CAMERON ROBERTS
(fifth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
REBECCA ANNING
(sixth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
ADRIANA EUGENIA HERNANDEZ SILVA
(seventh respondent/not a party to the appeal)
JARRAD GLENN BUNT
(eighth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
JESSICA LEE DEMCHENKO
(ninth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
DIANNE MARYIA MASSEY
(tenth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
VISHENDRAN NAIDU
(eleventh respondent/not a party to the appeal)
B CORPORATION (QLD) PTY LTD
ACN 651 109 894
(twelfth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
GEORGE STANLEY NEWBOLD
(thirteenth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
BRENDA ZHOYA
(fourteenth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
MICHAELA ERIKA MORELAND
(fifteenth respondent)
REMY ARRAN MORELAND
(sixteenth respondent)
KRISTIE-LEE ANNING
(seventeenth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
DESMOND LAFFY
(eighteenth respondent)
TRINA LAFFY
(nineteenth respondent)
CORNELIA CHRISTINE DAY
(twentieth respondent/not a party to the appeal)
COLIN JAMES BURTON
(twenty-first respondent/not a party to the appeal)
PERRIE BURTON
(twenty-second respondent/not a party to the appeal)
SILVANA TRPESKA
(twenty-third respondent/not a party to the appeal)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9265 of 2024
SC No 8832 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 149 (Applegarth J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 25 July 2024
Date of Publication of Reasons: 13 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2024

JUDGES:

Dalton JA and Wilson and Crowley JJ

ORDER:

Date of Order: 25 July 2024

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – where contracts for the sale of apartments “off the plan” contemplated the respondent buyers might borrow the purchase price from a financier – where the appellant seller was to give the buyers at least 14 days notice of settlement and the notice was to be given at a time reasonably determined by the seller – where the seller gave a notice of settlement – where the buyers requested access to the apartments to permit their valuer to perform a valuation for the purpose of obtaining finance – where the seller did not respond to the buyers’ requests for their valuers to inspect the apartments for seven days – where construction works prevented an inspection occurring for the same period – where the contract was not subject to finance – whether the primary judge erred by implying a term that each party co-operate to allow the other party the benefit of the contract so that the seller must respond promptly to requests so as to allow the buyer the full…

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 Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd v Brightman 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: [2024] QCA 147
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd, the seller of apartments, and Brightman, the buyer. The central issue was whether the seller had breached an implied term in the contract by failing to promptly respond to the buyers’ requests to allow their valuers to inspect the apartments. This was a case of sale of apartments "off the plan" where the buyers intended to secure finance from a lender. The contract stipulated that the seller would provide at least 14 days' notice of settlement, at a time reasonably determined by the seller, and that the contract was not subject to finance. The buyers sought access to the apartments to enable their valuer to perform a valuation, but the seller did not respond to their requests for seven days, and construction works also prevented an inspection. The buyers argued that the seller's delay was unreasonable and amounted to a breach of an implied term to co-operate to allow the buyers to benefit from the contract. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge was correct in implying such a term and whether the delay constituted a breach.

The court examined whether the primary judge was correct in implying a term requiring the seller to promptly respond to the buyers' requests for inspection to allow the full 14 days for valuation. The court found that the primary judge did not err in implying such a term, as it was necessary for the contract to operate effectively. The court also considered whether the primary judge was correct in finding that the seller's delay in responding to the buyers' requests was unreasonable. The court held that the evidence supported the primary judge's conclusion that the delay was unreasonable and amounted to a breach of the implied term. The court further examined whether the primary judge was correct in concluding that there was a real risk of damage occurring in the future because of the delay, justifying injunctive and declaratory relief. The court found that the primary judge did not err in this regard, as the evidence showed a real risk of the buyers being unable to secure finance in time for settlement.

The court concluded that the primary judge did not err in implying the term or in finding that the seller's delay was unreasonable and constituted a breach of the implied term. The court also found that the primary judge was correct in concluding that there was a real risk of damage occurring in the future because of the breach. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 25 July 2024

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:	Royal Pines Projects Pty Ltd v Brightman [2024] QCA 147
PARTIES:	ROYAL PINES PROJECTS PTY LTD ACN 118 164 999 ATF BRISBANE CREDITS TRUST (appellant) v ADAM BRIGHTMAN (first respondent/not a party to the appeal) JODIE BRIGHTMAN (second respondent/not a party to the appeal) MARY MAGGIE MAE CRUZ (third respondent/not a party to the appeal) RAYMOND CAVITE CRUZ (fourth respondent/not a party to the appeal) CAMERON ROBERTS (fifth respondent/not a party to the appeal) REBECCA ANNING (sixth respondent/not a party to the appeal) ADRIANA EUGENIA HERNANDEZ SILVA (seventh respondent/not a party to the appeal) JARRAD GLENN BUNT (eighth respondent/not a party to the appeal) JESSICA LEE DEMCHENKO (ninth respondent/not a party to the appeal) DIANNE MARYIA MASSEY (tenth respondent/not a party to the appeal) VISHENDRAN NAIDU (eleventh respondent/not a party to the appeal) B CORPORATION (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 651 109 894 (twelfth respondent/not a party to the appeal) GEORGE STANLEY NEWBOLD (thirteenth respondent/not a party to the appeal) BRENDA ZHOYA (fourteenth respondent/not a party to the appeal) MICHAELA ERIKA MORELAND (fifteenth respondent) REMY ARRAN MORELAND (sixteenth respondent) KRISTIE-LEE ANNING (seventeenth respondent/not a party to the appeal) DESMOND LAFFY (eighteenth respondent) TRINA LAFFY (nineteenth respondent) CORNELIA CHRISTINE DAY (twentieth respondent/not a party to the appeal) COLIN JAMES BURTON (twenty-first respondent/not a party to the appeal) PERRIE BURTON (twenty-second respondent/not a party to the appeal) SILVANA TRPESKA (twenty-third respondent/not a party to the appeal)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9265 of 2024 SC No 8832 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 149 (Applegarth J)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 25 July 2024 Date of Publication of Reasons: 13 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 July 2024
JUDGES:	Dalton JA and Wilson and Crowley JJ
ORDER:	Date of Order: 25 July 2024 The appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – IMPLIED TERMS – where contracts for the sale of apartments “off the plan” contemplated the respondent buyers might borrow the purchase price from a financier – where the appellant seller was to give the buyers at least 14 days notice of settlement and the notice was to be given at a time reasonably determined by the seller – where the seller gave a notice of settlement – where the buyers requested access to the apartments to permit their valuer to perform a valuation for the purpose of obtaining finance – where the seller did not respond to the buyers’ requests for their valuers to inspect the apartments for seven days – where construction works prevented an inspection occurring for the same period – where the contract was not subject to finance – whether the primary judge erred by implying a term that each party co-operate to allow the other party the benefit of the contract so that the seller must respond promptly to requests so as to allow the buyer the full…