Vennard v Delorain P/L as Trustee for the Delorain Trust

The appeal in Vennard v Delorain P/L as Trustee for the Delorain Trust involved a dispute between the appellant, Vennard, and the respondent, Delorain P/L, regarding the sale of a proposed lot in a community titles scheme. The central issue was whether Vennard was entitled to terminate the contract under various statutory provisions, including sections 25 and 21 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld) and section 212 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), or if she was estopped from doing so. Vennard sought declarations that the contract was void for uncertainty, had been terminated under the statutory provisions, or that she was entitled to avoid, not complete, or cancel the contract.

The court examined whether Vennard was entitled to avoid the contract under section 25 for non-compliance with section 21. The appellant contended that section 21 required a precise description of the proposed lot, which was not provided. The court considered whether Vennard had suffered material prejudice as a result of this non-compliance. Additionally, the court addressed whether the appellant was entitled to terminate the contract under section 212 of the BCCMA due to substantial incompleteness in the disclosure statement. The court also evaluated the retrospective application of the amendments to the BCCMA by the Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Act 2009 (Qld) to Vennard's legal proceedings.

The court concluded that Vennard was not entitled to avoid or terminate the contract as claimed. It held that the description provided in the contract was sufficient under section 21 of the Land Sales Act, and there was no material prejudice suffered by Vennard. Regarding the BCCMA, the court found that the disclosure statement was not substantially incomplete, and the appellant had not proved the required criteria for termination. The court also determined that the amended provisions of the BCCMA did not apply retrospectively to Vennard's proceedings, and she had not validly cancelled the contract prior to the amendments. The appeal was dismissed with costs.