Legal Research
Cases
Scott v Ennis-Oakes

Scott v Ennis-Oakes

Case [2019] NSWSC 1257 23 September 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v Ennis-Oakes [2019] NSWSC 1257
Hearing dates: 16 September 2019
Date of orders: 23 September 2019
Decision date: 23 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Darke J
Decision:
Plaintiffs’ claim for loss of bargain damages fails. Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: LAND LAW – contract for sale of land – claim for loss of bargain damages – vendor and purchasers entered into contract for sale of lot in proposed subdivision – term of contract required plan of subdivision to be lodged for registration as soon as practicable and with due expedition – contract gave either party right to rescind if plan of subdivision not registered within 12 months – vendor purported to rescind contract on basis that registration of plan of subdivision did not occur within 12 months – purchasers thereupon commenced proceedings for specific performance of contract – vendor subsequently rescinded contract pursuant to a different contractual provision – purchasers accept the validity of that rescission – purchasers abandon claim for specific performance and instead seek loss of bargain damages – whether loss of bargain damages recoverable – contract not terminated for wrongful conduct of vendor – no claim for loss of bargain damages had accrued by the time of the rescission – loss of bargain damages not recoverable
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66ZL
Conveyancing Amendment (Sunset Clauses) Act 2015 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.16
Cases Cited: Carr v J A Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 327
Dominion Coal Co. Ltd v Dominion Iron & Steel Co. Ltd [1909] AC 293
Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] AC 356
McRoss Developments Pty Ltd v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd (2004) 11 BPR 21,615; [2004] NSWSC 183
Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444
Peter Turnbull & Company Pty Ltd v Mundus Trading Company (Australasia) Pty Ltd (1954) 90 CLR 235
Ronnoc Finance v Spectrum Network Systems Ltd (1997) 45 NSWLR 624
Silver Star Fashions Pty Ltd v Dal Broi (2018) 19 BPR 38813; [2018] NSWSC 1445
Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245
Tamanna v Zattere (2017) 18 BPR 37,139; [2017] NSWSC 1388
Upper Hunter Timbers Pty Ltd v Forestry Commission of NSW [1999] NSWCA 125
Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Heydon on Contract (Lawbook Co., 2019)
J W Carter, Contract Law in Australia (Sixth Edition, 2013, LexisNexis Butterworths)
P J Butt, The Standard Contract for Sale of Land in New South Wales (Second Edition, 1998, LBC Information Services)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kylie Anne Scott (First Plaintiff)
Bradley John Scott (Second Plaintiff)
Nicole Rae Ennis-Oakes (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A D Crossland (Plaintiffs)
Mr J C Kelly SC with Mr M F Newton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gavin Parsons & Associates (Plaintiffs)
Dentons Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/232666
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

These proceedings concern a contract for the sale of land entered into on 9 June 2015 between the plaintiffs (Kylie and Bradley Scott) as purchasers and…

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 Scott v Ennis-Oakes

Details

AGLC: Scott v Ennis-Oakes [2019] NSWSC 1257
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1257
Decision Date: 23 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Scott v Ennis-Oakes involved a dispute between the vendor and purchasers over the sale of a lot in a proposed subdivision. The purchasers claimed for loss of bargain damages after the vendor rescinded the contract for sale of land. The vendor had entered into a contract with the purchasers, which included a term that a plan of subdivision would be lodged for registration as soon as practicable and with due expedition. The contract provided either party with the right to rescind if the plan was not registered within 12 months. The purchasers initiated proceedings for specific performance of the contract when the vendor purported to rescind it due to the plan of subdivision not being registered within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the vendor rescinded the contract under a different contractual provision, which the purchasers accepted as valid. The purchasers then abandoned their claim for specific performance and sought loss of bargain damages instead.

The legal issues before the court were whether loss of bargain damages were recoverable and if such damages had accrued by the time of the rescission. The court had to determine if the loss of bargain damages were available given that the contract was not terminated due to the wrongful conduct of the vendor. The purchasers argued that they were entitled to loss of bargain damages as they had incurred expenses and lost a valuable opportunity to purchase the property. The vendor contended that loss of bargain damages were not recoverable because the contract was not terminated for their wrongful conduct and no claim for such damages had accrued by the time of the rescission.

The court held that loss of bargain damages were not recoverable in this case. The contract was rescinded by the vendor pursuant to a different contractual provision, not due to any wrongful conduct. Additionally, the court found that no claim for loss of bargain damages had accrued by the time the rescission occurred. Therefore, the purchasers were not entitled to recover such damages. The court's decision was based on the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances of the rescission. The vendors were not liable for loss of bargain damages as no such claim had accrued by the time the contract was validly rescinded.

Orders