Turan Hasan and Inver Kapuraya v Pirasta Pty Ltd

Turan Hasan and Inver Kapuraya sought to set aside a sale of their property, arguing that an agreement with Pirasta Pty Ltd was an accord executory. The dispute was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Australian Capital Territory. The central legal issue was whether the parties had entered into a binding contract, specifically an accord executory, which would require the lessees to complete the sale of their property to Pirasta Pty Ltd. Alternatively, the lessees argued that Pirasta Pty Ltd’s offer was a mere unilateral offer, which would not bind them to complete the sale.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that Pirasta Pty Ltd’s offer was not a unilateral offer but rather an accord executory. This was based on the mutual intent of the parties as evidenced by their correspondence and the nature of the agreement. The Tribunal found that the terms of the agreement were clear and that there was an intention to be bound upon certain conditions being met. Consequently, the lessees’ application to set aside the sale was dismissed, and it was determined that Pirasta Pty Ltd was entitled to proceed with the sale of the property as agreed.

The Tribunal also made orders regarding costs. It dismissed the lessees' application and gave either party the liberty to make a costs application within the specified timelines. The Tribunal outlined the procedural steps for making and responding to costs applications, including the deadlines and requirements for serving documents. This structured approach ensures that any subsequent costs applications are handled efficiently and transparently.