Sieve-Storm Pty Ltd ACN 160 562 354 as trustee for Affordable Property Trust v Murphy

Sieve-Storm Pty Ltd ACN 160 562 354 as trustee for the Affordable Property Trust brought an action against Murphy, challenging the validity of an option to purchase properties. The dispute centred on whether the options to purchase were validly rescinded by the vendor, and whether the purchaser had exercised these options by notice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court included whether the vendor had validly rescinded the options in accordance with statutory provisions, whether the purchaser had exercised the options by notice, and whether the vendor was estopped from relying on the statutory provisions of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the vendor's conduct was unconscionable, and if estoppel could prevail against the statutory provisions, thereby entitling the purchaser to restitution.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by Division 9 of Part 4 of the Conveyancing Act, which governs the rescission of options to purchase. It assessed whether the vendor had followed the prescribed procedures for rescinding the options, and whether these procedures were validly executed. The court also considered whether the purchaser had given a valid notice of exercise of the options. Furthermore, it explored the principles of estoppel and unconscionability, and whether the vendor's actions could be deemed unconscionable to the extent that estoppel would apply. The court balanced these principles against the statutory provisions to determine if estoppel could override the statutory requirements.

The court concluded that the vendor had not validly rescinded the options in accordance with the statutory provisions. It found that the purchaser had not exercised the options by notice, and that the vendor was not estopped from relying on the statutory provisions. The court held that the vendor's conduct did not reach the level of unconscionability necessary to invoke estoppel, particularly in light of the clear statutory framework. Consequently, the purchaser was not entitled to restitution.

The court dismissed the claim, affirming that the statutory provisions of the Conveyancing Act were not contravened, and that the purchaser's reliance on the vendor's alleged representations did not override the statutory requirements for the rescission of options.