Toepfer v Hackett

The plaintiff, Karin Toepfer, filed an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the defendant, Peter Hackett, seeking specific performance of an agreement for the sale of shares in Sanctuary Cove Dry Cleaners Pty Limited, or alternatively, damages. The defendant has appeared and is resisting the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the agreement was partly written and partly oral and that the price of the shares was to be adjusted by half of the company's profits up until the settlement date. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff has repudiated the contract and seeks specific performance of the agreement or damages in the alternative.

The central legal issue in this case is whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was entirely written or partly oral, and if the latter, what the terms of the oral agreement were. Additionally, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has repudiated the contract and if the defendant has a valid counter-claim for specific performance or damages. The court is required to assess the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain whether the defendant has a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that there was an agreement as alleged by the defendant, and there were issues that required a trial. The court noted that paragraph 18 of an affidavit filed on 11 September provided sufficient evidence to satisfy that there was an issue which ought to be tried. Consequently, the defendant was granted leave to defend the action. The court invited further submissions on the form of the order to be made and costs.