Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v Ennis-Oakes [2020] NSWCA 239 Hearing dates: 7 May 2020 Decision date: 01 October 2020 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Bell P at [61]; Gleeson JA at [64] Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Order the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords: LAND LAW – Conveyancing – Contract for sale – Rescission – Respondent wished to rescind contract – Appellants did not consent to proposed rescission and maintained contract was “still on foot” – Appellants elected to affirm contract rather than terminating and seeking loss of bargain damages – Appellants sought orders for specific performance – Respondent subsequently entered into a Scheme of Arrangement Deed and sought to rescind the contract on this basis – Appellants sought loss of bargain damages – Whether contract came to an end because of supervening circumstances – Whether appellants entitled to loss of bargain damages at the time when respondent terminated contract on basis of entering into Scheme of Arrangement.
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468
Cheall v Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff [1983] 2 AC 180
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 75 ALJR 312
Dominion Coal Co Ltd v Dominion Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1909] AC 293
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7
Heyman v Darwins [1942] AC 356
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32; (2019) 93 ALJR 1164
Peter Turnbull & Co Pty Ltd v Mundus Trading Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (1954) 90 CLR 235; [1954] HCA 25
Progressive Mailing House v Tabali Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 17; [1985] HCA 14
Re Gibbs and Houlder Bros & Co Limited’s Lease [1925] Ch 198
Shevill v Builders Licensing Board (1982) 149 CLR 620; [1982] HCA 47
Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd (1988) 164 CLR 214 at 227; [1987] HCA 66
Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245; [1988] HCA 11
The Millstream Pty Ltd v Schultz [1980] 1 NSWLR 547
Upper Hunter Timbers Pty Ltd v Forestry Commission of NSW [1999] NSWCA 125
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kylie Anne Scott (first appellant)
Bradley John Scott (second appellant)
Nicole Rae Ennis-Oakes (respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
A D Crossland with M Cobb-Clark (appellants)
J C Kelly SC with M F Newtown (respondent)
Gavin Parsons & Associates (appellants)
Dentons (respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/305409 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 23 September 2019
- Before:
- Darke J
- File Number(s):
- 2017/232666
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Kylie Anne Scott and Bradley John Scott (the appellants) appealed against orders made by the primary judge dismissing a claim brought by them against the respondent,…
Continue reading Scott v Ennis-Oakes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Scott v Ennis-Oakes [2020] NSWCA 239
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 239
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether the contract had ended due to supervening circumstances, and whether the appellants were entitled to loss of bargain damages at the time the respondent terminated the contract by entering into the Scheme of Arrangement.
The Court reasoned that the appellants' election to affirm the contract, rather than terminate and claim damages, meant they were bound by that election. The subsequent entry into the Scheme of Arrangement by the respondent constituted a repudiation of the contract. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to elect to affirm the contract and claim loss of bargain damages at the time of this repudiation. However, the Court found that the appellants had not established that the contract had come to an end due to supervening circumstances.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Order the appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.