SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Special Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Simmons [2012] QCA 205
PARTIES:
SPECIAL PROJECTS (QLD) PTY LTD
ACN 010 306 313
(appellant)
v
MICHAEL SIMMONS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE FATE TRUST
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 463 of 2012
SC No 10248 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 July 2012
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, Fraser JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. That the appeal be allowed;
2. That the declarations and orders made on 20 December 2011 be set aside;
3. That the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – WHOLE ACT TO BE CONSIDERED – where appellant and respondent entered a put and call option deed granting the respondent the right to purchase two lots – where those lots had been partially resumed and had vested in the Crown – where that resumption had been acknowledged by the parties – whether the Land Sales Act 1984 applies to a contract for the sale of land part of which has been resumed under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967
Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (Qld), s 12, s 12A
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 32A
Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld), s 2, s 5, s 6, s 8, s 9
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), sch 2
Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 (Qld), sch 19, sch 26CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2, followed
Conde v Gilfoyle[2010] QCA 109, cited
Francis v NPD Property Development Pty Ltd [2005] 1 Qd R 240; [2004] QCA 343, cited
Luke v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1963] AC 557, cited
R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; [1999] NSWCCA 166, cited
Three Pty Ltd v Body Corporate for Savoir Faire Community Titles Scheme 3841 [2008] 2 Qd R 568; [2008] QCA 167, cited
Wentworth Securities Ltd v Jones [1980] AC 74, appliedCOUNSEL:
D Gore QC for the appellant
K Fleming QC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Phil Shakespeare for the appellant
Short Punch & Greatorix for the respondent
CHIEF JUSTICE: The fundamental issue in the appeal is whether the avoidance and termination provisions of the Land Sales Act 1984 apply to a contract for the sale of land part of which has been resumed under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967.
On 18 March 2011, the appellant and the respondent executed a put and call option deed in relation to Lots 170 and 171 bordering Surfers Paradise Boulevard at Surfers Paradise. It granted the respondent an option to purchase, to be exercised by 8 February…
Continue reading Special Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Simmons
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Special Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Simmons [2012] QCA 205
- Case
- [2012] QCA 205
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to interpret the relevant statutes and determine if the Land Sales Act applied to the contract in question. The court considered the general approaches to interpretation, focusing on the need to consider the whole act when interpreting statutory provisions. The court examined the language of the statutes and the context in which they were enacted. The court concluded that the Land Sales Act did not apply to the contract as it only applies to the sale of land that has not been resumed, and the lots in question had been partially resumed and vested in the Crown.
The appeal was allowed, and the declarations and orders made on 20 December 2011 were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's decision provides guidance on the interpretation of statutes and the application of the Land Sales Act in cases where land has been partially resumed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That the appeal be allowed;
2. That the declarations and orders made on 20 December 2011 be set aside;
3. That the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
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.