Williamson v Jia Holdings Pty Ltd - [2011] QSC 84

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williamson and Ors v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors [2011] QSC 84

PARTIES:

JEFFREY JAMES WILLIAMSON & ANOR
(Plaintiffs)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

STEPHEN ASHLEY COOPER & ORS
(Plaintiffs)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

MARK CLINTON CRASWELL
(Plaintiff)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

KERRY ALLAN SHORT & ANOR
(Plaintiffs)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

GEOFFREY WILLIAM BARRITT & ANOR
(Plaintiffs)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

GREGORY KEITH OLIVE & ANOR
(Plaintiffs)

and

JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR
(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5987 of 2005, BS 5989 of 2005, BS 5990 of 2005, BS 5991 of 2005, BS 5992 of 2005 and BS 5993 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Declaratory Relief (Claim)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

Friday, 15 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2011, 18 February 2011, 21 February 2011, 22 February 2011

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

Each of the plaintiffs’ claims is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CONVEYANCING – THE CONTRACT AND CONDITIONS OF SALE – SALE OF PROPOSED LOT – BREACH OF EXPRESS PRECONDITION OF CONTRACT – TIMELY REGISTRATION OF COMMUNITY TITLE SCHEME – VENDOR'S OBLIGATIONS – Where plaintiffs allege the contract required the vendor to do everything reasonably necessary to have the plan constructed and registered – whether the vendor used its best endeavours in carrying out those tasks

Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld)

Earle Cameron (Industrial) Pty Ltd v Comprador Properties Pty Ltd (1986) NSW ConvR 55-305

Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41

Joseph Street Pty Ltd and Ors v Khay Tea Tan and Ors [2010] VSC 586

Masters v Belpate Pty Ltd (2001) NSW ConvR 55-988

COUNSEL:

Myers, RA for the 1^st – 6^th plaintiffs

No legal representation for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Baker O’Brien Toll for the 1^st – 6^th plaintiffs

No legal representation for the defendants

[1] By contracts in writing entered into by each of the plaintiffs in or about September 2003, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase a unit in a building unit development proposed to be built by the first defendant at The Esplanade, Bargara Beach in the State of Queensland, which was to be known as “Synergy The Esplanade Bargara Beach”, and be registered as a community title scheme pursuant to Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (“the Act”).

[2] By claims filed in or about July 2005, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for breach of those contracts arising out of…

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 Williamson v Jia Holdings 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: [2011] QSC 84
Decision Date: 15 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williamson v Jia Holdings Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, who were prospective purchasers, and the defendant, a vendor, regarding the sale of a proposed lot. The plaintiffs sought to enforce a contract for sale which included an express precondition that the vendor must do everything reasonably necessary to have the plan for a community title scheme constructed and registered. The central issue was whether the vendor had used its best endeavours in attempting to complete this task. The court was required to determine whether the vendor breached this express precondition by not ensuring timely registration of the community title scheme, and whether this constituted a failure to use its best endeavours.

The court examined the express terms of the contract and found that the vendor's obligations were clearly defined and included a duty to use best endeavours in achieving the registration of the community title scheme. The court held that the vendor had not breached the contract as the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the vendor's efforts were insufficient. The court found that the vendor had acted diligently and in accordance with the obligations outlined in the contract. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as the court found that the vendor had fulfilled its contractual obligations and had not breached any express preconditions.

The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence from the plaintiffs to prove that the vendor had not used its best endeavours to complete the registration process. The court found that the vendor had made reasonable and diligent efforts to ensure the registration was achieved. The court concluded that the vendor's actions were consistent with the contractual obligations, and therefore the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. The orders of the court were that each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each of the plaintiffs’ claims is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Williamson and Ors v JIA Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors [2011] QSC 84
PARTIES:	JEFFREY JAMES WILLIAMSON & ANOR (Plaintiffs) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants) STEPHEN ASHLEY COOPER & ORS (Plaintiffs) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants) MARK CLINTON CRASWELL (Plaintiff) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants) KERRY ALLAN SHORT & ANOR (Plaintiffs) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants) GEOFFREY WILLIAM BARRITT & ANOR (Plaintiffs) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants) GREGORY KEITH OLIVE & ANOR (Plaintiffs) and JIA HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 099 049 822 as trustee for the JIA UNIT TRUST & ANOR (Defendants)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5987 of 2005, BS 5989 of 2005, BS 5990 of 2005, BS 5991 of 2005, BS 5992 of 2005 and BS 5993 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Declaratory Relief (Claim)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	Friday, 15 April 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 February 2011, 18 February 2011, 21 February 2011, 22 February 2011
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	Each of the plaintiffs’ claims is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING – THE CONTRACT AND CONDITIONS OF SALE – SALE OF PROPOSED LOT – BREACH OF EXPRESS PRECONDITION OF CONTRACT – TIMELY REGISTRATION OF COMMUNITY TITLE SCHEME – VENDOR'S OBLIGATIONS – Where plaintiffs allege the contract required the vendor to do everything reasonably necessary to have the plan constructed and registered – whether the vendor used its best endeavours in carrying out those tasks Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) Earle Cameron (Industrial) Pty Ltd v Comprador Properties Pty Ltd (1986) NSW ConvR 55-305 Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 Joseph Street Pty Ltd and Ors v Khay Tea Tan and Ors [2010] VSC 586 Masters v Belpate Pty Ltd (2001) NSW ConvR 55-988
COUNSEL:	Myers, RA for the 1^st – 6^th plaintiffs No legal representation for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Baker O’Brien Toll for the 1^st – 6^th plaintiffs No legal representation for the defendants