Tricare Australia Ltd v Highmist Pty Ltd - [1998] QCA 251

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 251
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 601 of 1998

Brisbane

[Tricare Aust Ltd v. Highmist P/L]

BETWEEN:

TRICARE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 010 583 392)

(Respondent) Appellant

AND:

HIGHMIST PTY LTD
(ACN 073 507 481)

(Applicant) Respondent
McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.A.
Derrington J.

Judgment delivered 1 September 1998

Judgment of the Court

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT - Vendor and purchaser - construction - right to terminate for non-fulfilment of condition - whether such right exclusively for purchaser - possible discharge in due course by frustration.
Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162 Brisbane City Council v Group Projects Pty Ltd (1979) 145 CLR 143 Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 Sandra Investments Pty Ltd v Booth (1983) 153 CLR 153
Counsel:	Mr W Sofronoff QC, with him Mr D Kelly for the appellant Mr P Lyons QC for the respondent
Solicitors:	Bowdens for the appellant R Praeger & Associates for the respondent
Hearing Date:	28 July 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 601 of 1998

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.A.
Derrington J.

[Tricare Aust Ltd v. Highmist P/L]

BETWEEN:

TRICARE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 010 583 392)

(Respondent) Appellant

AND:

HIGHMIST PTY LTD
(ACN 073 507 481)

(Applicant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 1 September 1998

This is an appeal against an order made in the Trial Division on a vendor and purchaser

summons. His Honour held that on the proper construction of the contract the vendor had no right

to terminate it. The vendor had claimed to be entitled to do so by reason of the non-occurrence of

certain events by a given date (27 October 1997).

It will be convenient to refer to the appellant (Tricare) as the vendor, and to the respondent

(Highmist) as the purchaser.

The contract was for the sale of vacant land in the Gold Coast area for a purchase price of

$4.2 million. Provision was made for two “deposit instalments” totalling $200,000.00, and these

were duly paid to the vendor. However the sale was of part only of a designated lot and it was

limited to the area “as is approximately shown on the attached plan”. Under s.60(2) of the Land

Titles Act the transfer of part of a lot is prohibited. It was necessary to obtain exemption from that

provision by a special application to the registrar, and it is common ground that such an exemption

was obtained.

For present purposes the two special conditions of the contract that are directly relevant are

cll.47 and 49:

“47 SUBDIVISION REGISTRATION
47.1 This contract is subject to:

(a) approval by the Local Authority and registration in the appropriate office of a plan of subdivision substantially in the form attached; and
(b) the issue of an indefeasible title under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tricare Australia Ltd v Highmist Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] QCA 251
Decision Date: 1/09/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tricare Australia Ltd and Highmist Pty Ltd were engaged in a dispute before the court. The issue at hand was whether Tricare had the exclusive right to terminate the contract for Highmist's non-fulfilment of a condition. The case was heard in the court, which had to determine the legal issues surrounding the contract's termination clause. The central legal question was whether Tricare's right to terminate the contract for Highmist's failure to meet a condition was exclusive, or if there was potential for discharge due to frustration.

The court considered whether the contract explicitly stated that Tricare had the sole right to terminate in such circumstances. It also examined whether Highmist could be discharged from its obligations due to an unforeseen event rendering the contract's performance impossible or radically different from what was agreed upon. The court weighed these possibilities against the principle of mutual consent and the rights of both parties under the contract.

Upon reviewing the contract and the circumstances, the court concluded that Tricare did not have the exclusive right to terminate the contract for Highmist's non-fulfilment of a condition. The court found that there was potential for discharge due to frustration, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The court's decision acknowledged the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights of both parties in contractual agreements. The court did not provide specific final orders, as the matter was subject to further proceedings based on the court's findings.

Orders