Tummala v Tiger Property Group Pty Ltd (Civil Dispute)

The dispute in Tummala v Tiger Property Group Pty Ltd was between the purchaser of a unit and the vendor, who had sold the unit before the development had been approved. The purchaser sought to rescind the contract on the basis that the unit had been sold before development approval was obtained, as well as alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and a breach of contract. The court had to determine whether the rescission clause was unfair, whether changes to the building plans during the approval process breached the sale contract, whether the vendor engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and whether the vendor breached the sale contract by failing to endeavour to obtain all necessary approvals.

The court found that the rescission clause was not unfair, as it was not one-sided and allowed for the purchaser to terminate the contract if development approval was not obtained within a certain time frame. The court also found that changes to the building plans during the approval process did not breach the sale contract, as the plans were approved and the purchaser had not objected to the changes. Regarding misleading and deceptive conduct, the court found that the vendor had not engaged in such conduct, as they had disclosed all relevant information to the purchaser and had acted in good faith. Finally, the court found that the vendor had not breached the sale contract by failing to endeavour to obtain all necessary approvals, as they had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the approvals and had not acted negligently.

As a result of the above findings, the court dismissed the purchaser's claims and found in favour of the vendor. The court ordered the purchaser to pay the vendor's costs of the proceeding, which were assessed at $50,000. The purchaser was also ordered to complete the sale of the unit within 30 days of the judgment.