Tohme v Q & A

In the matter of Tohme v Q & A, the case before the court concerned a dispute between the vendor and purchaser of a property, specifically a unit, regarding the enforcement of a contract through specific performance. The purchaser sought to compel the vendor to complete the sale of the unit, arguing that the contract terms allowed for such an enforcement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the time stipulated in the contract for the sale of the unit needed to be explicitly declared as of the essence for the court to grant specific performance. The purchaser contended that since the contract did not explicitly state that time was of the essence, specific performance should not be denied. The vendor, on the other hand, argued that without such a declaration, specific performance was not warranted.

The court examined the contract and found that the inclusion of a clause setting a date for completion did not necessitate the explicit declaration that time was of the essence for the contract to be enforceable by specific performance. The court held that the nature of the contract and the surrounding circumstances sufficiently indicated that the completion date was critical, thus allowing for the enforcement of specific performance. The court concluded that the purchaser was entitled to compel the vendor to complete the sale of the unit as per the contract terms. The court's decision affirmed that specific performance could be granted even without an express clause stating that time was of the essence.