Walton v Hewatt; Walton v Hewatt

In *Walton v Hewatt; Walton v Hewatt*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals arising from a dispute concerning a contract for the sale of land. The appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Walton, were the purchasers under the contract, and the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Hewatt, were the vendors. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the purchasers had validly exercised an option to extend the settlement date under the contract.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the notice of exercise of the option to extend the settlement date was effective. This involved determining whether the notice was given in accordance with the terms of the contract and, if not, whether the vendors had waived strict compliance with those terms. A secondary issue concerned the appropriate remedy for the purchasers if the notice was found to be ineffective and the vendors had not waived their rights.

The Court of Appeal held that the notice of exercise of the option was not effective because it was not given in the manner stipulated by the contract. The contract required notice to be given to the vendors personally or by registered post to their address for service. The notice was instead sent by ordinary post to the vendors' residential address, which was not their address for service. The Court found that there was no evidence to support a finding that the vendors had waived strict compliance with this contractual requirement. Consequently, the purchasers had not validly exercised the option to extend the settlement date.

As a result of the ineffective exercise of the option, the settlement date passed without the purchasers having secured the necessary finance. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the purchasers' appeals and upheld the primary judge's decision that the purchasers had breached the contract by failing to settle on the original settlement date. The orders made by the primary judge, which included declarations that the contract had been validly rescinded by the vendors and that the purchasers were not entitled to a return of their deposit, were affirmed.