Urban Traders Pty Ltd v Proceris Pty Ltd - [2005] NSWSC 1192

CITATION:
Urban Traders P/L v Proceris P/L [2005] NSWSC 1192

HEARING DATE(S): 29, 30 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

25 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Brereton J

DECISION:
See para 92.

CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – specific performance – circumstances in which specific performance will be ordered before any breach of contract.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Conveyancing Act, 1919 s 66G
Property Stock and Business Agents Act, 2002

CASES CITED:
Butt v M’Donald (1896) 7 QLJ 68
Earl of Rippon v Hobart (1834) 3 MynK 169, 176, 40 ER 65
Hasham v Zenab [1960] AC 316
Hooper v Rogers [1975] Ch 43
Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 AppCas 251
Marks v Lilley [1959] 1 WLR 749
R v MacFarlane; ex parte O’Flanagan (1923) 32 CLR 518
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Limited v St Martin’s Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596
Tito v Wadell (No. 2) [1977] Ch 106
Turner v Bladin (1951) 82 CLR 463
Urban Traders Pty Ltd v Proceris Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 360

PARTIES:
Urban Traders Pty Limited ACN 065 803 661 (Plaintiff)
Proceris Pty Limited ACN 091 569 176 (D1)
Glenn Roberts (D2)
Ragnam Pty Limited ACN 002 000 697 (D3)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 5080/05

COUNSEL:
BA Coles QC & GA Sirtes (Plaintiff)
TA Alexis SC & Ms P Sibtain (Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Cara Marasco & Co (Plaintiff)
Hazan Hollander Solicitors (D1, D2, D3)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

25 November 2005

5080/05 Urban Traders Pty Ltd v Proceris Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff Urban Traders Pty Ltd and the first defendant Proceris Pty Ltd, of which the second defendant Glenn Roberts is the principal, are the co-owners, as tenants in common in shares two-thirds as to Urban and one-third as to Proceris, of land at Bayview in the State of New South Wales, and joint venturers in its development. Urban, whose principal is Bruce Jamieson, is under some financial pressure, and for some time has been endeavouring to bring about the sale of the land, so that from its share of the proceeds it may repay bank bills of about $7 million which are secured on the land. Proceris, which under the joint venture agreement has no financial obligation in respect of the project, is less enthusiastic, and is concerned to maximise the return to it.

2 After earlier proceedings brought by Urban for the appointment of trustees for sale of the land under Conveyancing Act, s 66G, were stayed on the ground that they were premature, because dispute resolution provisions in their joint venture agreement had not been implemented, Urban and Proceris agreed to take various steps to cause the land to be submitted for sale by public auction as soon as practicable. Urban contends that Proceris and Mr Roberts, and the third defendant Ragnam Pty Ltd (of which Mr Roberts is also the principal), have deliberately interfered with and obstructed the performance of that agreement and the progress of the sale, and…

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 Urban Traders Pty Ltd v Proceris 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: [2005] NSWSC 1192
Decision Date: 25 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Urban Traders Pty Ltd brought an action against Proceris Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centres on a contract for the sale of property, where Urban Traders seeks specific performance of the contract. Proceris disputes the claim, arguing that there has been no breach of contract and that specific performance should not be ordered preemptively. The court was tasked with determining the circumstances under which specific performance may be ordered before any actual breach of contract occurs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether specific performance can be ordered as an equitable remedy before any breach of the contract. The court considered whether the equitable principles of specific performance could be invoked in such a situation and what conditions, if any, must be met for such an order. The court examined relevant case law and equitable principles to determine if Urban Traders' claim for specific performance was justified in the absence of a breach.

The court held that specific performance may indeed be ordered before any breach of contract, provided that the party seeking the remedy demonstrates that a breach is inevitable and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The court found that Urban Traders had sufficiently demonstrated that a breach was imminent and that damages would not adequately compensate for the loss of the intended property. Therefore, the court granted specific performance, ordering Proceris to complete the sale of the property to Urban Traders. This decision reinforces the equitable principle that specific performance is available in appropriate circumstances, even before a breach of contract has occurred.

The court's final orders included an injunction requiring Proceris to complete the sale of the property to Urban Traders in accordance with the terms of the contract. The court also ordered Proceris to pay Urban Traders' costs associated with the proceedings. This decision highlights the equitable nature of specific performance and the court's willingness to grant such relief when it is just and equitable to do so.

Orders