Legal Research
Cases
Shaw v Hanlon

Shaw v Hanlon

Case [2020] TASSC 2 13 February 2020

Repudiation & Termination

Breach of Contract

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

[2020] TASSC 2

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Shaw v Hanlon [2020] TASSC 2

PARTIES:  SHAW, Lee Anthony
  v
  HANLON, Beverley Joyce

FILE NO:  3729/2016
DELIVERED ON:  13 February 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  8, 9 April 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Contracts – General contractual principles – Discharge, breach and defences to action for breach – Repudiation and non-performance – Delay and provisions as to time.

Aust Digest Contracts [133]

Contracts – General contractual principles – Discharge, breach and defences to action for breach – The limitation defence.

Aust Digest Contracts [145]

Estoppel – Estoppel by deed or convention – Estoppel by convention – Particular cases.

Aust Digest Estoppel [1041]

Limitation Act 1974 (Tas).

Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435; Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444; Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507; Hancock Family Memorial Foundation v Fieldhouse [2013] WASC 121; George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2015] WASC 434, referred to.

Grundt v The Great Boulder Proprietary Goldmines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641, Con-Stan Industries Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance Australia Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226, Alpha Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd v Franklin River Olive Co Ltd [2008] WASCA 119, 66 ACSR 594, National Westminster Finance New Zealand Ltd v National Bank of New Zealand Ltd [1996] 1 NZLR 548, Sze Tu v Lowe [2014] NSWCA 462, 89 NSWLR 317; Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 825, 329 ALR 1; Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395; Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Benchdollar Limited [2009] EWHC 1310 (Ch); The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; Forum v Whight (1989) 168 CLR 38; Queensland Independent Wholesalers Limited v Coutts Townsville Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 40, considered.

Kean v Holland [1984] 1 All ER 75; Bridgestart Properties Limited v London Underground Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 793, applied.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  S Taglieri SC, J Pedder
             Defendant:  C McKenzie
             Rae & Partners  P Jackson SC
             Zeeman Kable & Page  S B McElwaine SC
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Pedder Schuh Lawyers
             Defendant:  McLean, McKenzie & Topfer
             Rae & Partners  Simmons Wolfhagen
             Zeeman Kable & Page  Shaun McElwaine + Associates

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 2
Number of paragraphs: 82

Serial No 2/2020
File No 3729/2016

LEE ANTHONY SHAW v BEVERLEY JOYCE HANLON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

13 February 2020

On 6 August 2008, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract of sale with respect to the defendant's farm. The completion date specified in the contract was 6 October 2008. After signing the contract and paying a deposit to the stakeholder, the plaintiff entered into certain business arrangements with others. According to the plaintiff, those arrangements were in expectation of, and dependent upon, settlement taking place…

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 Shaw v Hanlon

Details

AGLC: Shaw v Hanlon [2020] TASSC 2
Case: [2020] TASSC 2
Decision Date: 13 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shaw v Hanlon, the plaintiff, Shaw, sought relief from the court for the defendant, Hanlon's, failure to complete the purchase of a property as agreed in their contract. The dispute was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Shaw had entered into a contract with Hanlon for the sale of a property. The contract specified a completion date, which Hanlon failed to meet. Shaw subsequently sought to enforce the contract and claim damages for Hanlon's non-performance.

The central legal issues that the court had to determine were whether Hanlon's delay constituted a repudiation of the contract and whether Shaw was required to provide notice to Hanlon before claiming damages. The court had to interpret the terms of the contract, particularly the provisions regarding time, and assess the consequences of Hanlon's non-compliance. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether any applicable principles of equity could influence the outcome.

The court found that Hanlon's delay in completing the purchase did amount to a repudiation of the contract. The terms of the contract clearly stipulated the completion date, and Hanlon's failure to adhere to this term was significant. The court held that Shaw was not required to give notice of intent to treat the contract as still binding, as Hanlon's actions had already constituted a repudiation. Consequently, Shaw was entitled to claim damages for the breach of contract. The court awarded Shaw the unpaid purchase price along with interest, as per the contractual terms.

The final orders of the court mandated that Hanlon pay Shaw the outstanding purchase price of the property, inclusive of interest from the date the payment was due. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to contractual deadlines and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders