Storey v Britton

In the case of Storey v Britton, the plaintiffs, the Storeys, sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of property from the defendants, the Brittons. The dispute centred on whether the contract had been validly terminated and whether the Storeys were in breach of the contract. The primary issue before the court was whether the Brittons validly terminated the contract on 12 February 2024, given the Storeys' late payment of a deposit. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Brittons effectively revived the contract through a letter from their solicitors dated 1 March 2024, and if the Storeys were ready, willing, and able to complete the contract. Finally, the court had to decide whether the Storeys were trespassing by residing in the property since 1 or 2 February 2024.

The court considered the timeline of events and the conduct of the parties. The Storeys paid $90,000 of the deposit on 1 February 2024 and the remaining $35,000 two days late on 4 February 2024. The Brittons did not act on the breach until ten days later, and their conduct indicated they were proceeding with the contract. The court found that the Brittons did not validly terminate the contract on 12 February 2024, as their actions did not unequivocally manifest an intention to terminate. Furthermore, the letter from the Brittons' solicitors on 1 March 2024, which affirmed the contract, was held to be admissible evidence and effectively revived the contract. The court concluded that the Storeys were ready, willing, and able to complete the contract, as evidenced by their conveyancer's testimony. Lastly, the court found that the Storeys were not trespassing, given the special conditions granting them 'exclusive access' to the property.

The court ordered specific performance of the contract, mandating the Brittons to complete the sale as per the terms agreed upon. The court scheduled a subsequent hearing to determine the form of the order and to address the issue of costs.