Smart v Smart

The parties to this case are the two sons of the late Mr and Mrs Smart, who had entered into partnership in the acquisition of certain property. The dispute before the court was whether an agreement signed at the conclusion of mediation was immediately binding, and whether the court should order specific performance of the agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the agreement signed at the conclusion of mediation was intended to be immediately binding, and whether the court should order specific performance of the agreement. The court had to determine whether the agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable, and whether the term of the agreement requiring the parties to enter into a subsequent deed was enforceable.

The court found that the agreement signed at the conclusion of mediation was intended to be immediately binding, and that the court should order specific performance of the agreement. The court held that the agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable, and that the term of the agreement requiring the parties to enter into a subsequent deed was enforceable. The court applied the principles established in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353; [1954] HCA 72, and found that the agreement was not conditional upon the execution of a subsequent deed. The court also found that the term of the agreement requiring the parties to apportion payment for the real property after obtaining independent accounting and taxation advice was enforceable, as it did not require any further action by the parties.

The court ordered specific performance of the agreement, and directed the parties to enter into a subsequent deed to apportion the payment for the real property. The court also found that the identification of the real property in the agreement was sufficiently certain, and that the composite price for the interest in the real property, trust and partnership property met the requirements of s 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919. The court also found that the term of the agreement requiring the parties to enter into a subsequent deed to apportion payment for the real property did not contravene s 274 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW).