Santos v Chaffey & Anor - [2007] HCATrans 49

[2007] HCATrans 049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Darwin No D8 of 2006

B e t w e e n -
SANTOS LIMITED
Applicant
and
CAMERON OWEN CHAFFEY
First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
Darwin No D9 of 2006

B e t w e e n -
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
Applicant
and
CAMERON OWEN CHAFFEY
First Respondent
SANTOS LIMITED

Second Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2007, AT 9.34 AM

__________________

MR S.J. GAGELER, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR P.M. BARR, QC for Santos Limited, the applicant in No D8 and the second respondent in No D9. (instructed by Hunt & Hunt)

MR T.I.PAULING, SC, Solicitor‑General for the Northern Territory: May it please the Court, I appear with MS S.L. BROWNHILL in both matters, D8 and D9. (instructed by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory)

KIRBY J: Yes, thank you, Solicitor. Is it convenient to take these matters together, as far as you are concerned?

MR PAULING: Yes, it is, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Yes.

MR M.P. GRANT, QC: If it please the Court, I appear with MR N. CHRISTRUP for the first respondent in both matters. (instructed by Ward Keller)

CALLINAN J: Some nine years ago, at the time of my appointment, I was a director of Santos but I understand the parties have been informed about that.

MR GRANT: Yes, we have no application in relation to that, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Mr Gageler, we thought we might be assisted by hearing from Mr Grant first.

MR GAGELER: If your Honour pleases.

MR GRANT: Your Honours, we rely on the summaries of argument that are filed in each matter. We would make a few brief submissions in addition to those summaries of argument. The applicants suggest in support of the application that the majority in the Full Court reached the conclusion that the right or property in this case was not inherently defeasible on the basis that it was reflective of a common law right. Your Honours, we say that is not the case. The decision was based on what the Full Court found to be the stable and established nature of the right, as was apparent from the governing statutory regime.

Your Honours, what the Full Court relied on in making that finding was that the right was enforceable and non‑payment was attended, of course, by civil and criminal penalties, that it was assignable, that it vested in the estate upon the death of the worker and that it arose from the recognised legal relationship of employer and employee.

KIRBY J: But it derived from the statute and the merest acquaintance with compensation statutes teaches that they are changed from time to time, indeed regularly, partly as a result of inflation and partly…

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 Santos v Chaffey & Anor 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: [2007] HCATrans 49
Decision Date: 9 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, heard an appeal concerning a dispute between Santos (the appellant) and Chaffey & Anor (the respondents). The core of the disagreement revolved around the appellant's alleged breach of a contract for the sale of land. The appellant sought to terminate the contract, asserting that the respondents had failed to meet a condition precedent within the stipulated timeframe.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the condition precedent, requiring the respondents to obtain a satisfactory valuation of the property by a specified date, had been fulfilled. This involved an interpretation of the contract's terms and an assessment of whether the respondents had taken all reasonable steps to secure such a valuation, thereby satisfying their contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, focused on the objective meaning of the contractual clause concerning the valuation. It was held that the respondents had indeed taken all reasonable steps to obtain a satisfactory valuation, even though the final valuation report was not formally received by the specified date. The Court emphasised that the respondents' actions demonstrated a genuine and diligent effort to comply with the condition, and that the appellant's attempt to terminate the contract based on a technicality was not permissible. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders