Legal Research
Cases
Woods v Woods

Woods v Woods

Case [2000] NSWSC 851 30 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 851

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1973/97

HEARING DATE(S): 5, 6 & 22 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 August 2000

PARTIES :

Glenn Woods (P1)
Marcia Woods (P2)
Desre Clair Woods (D1)
Richard Lee Woods (D2)
Amanda Jane Woods (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : I R Sanderson (P1 & 2)
Alex Radojev (D1-3)

SOLICITORS: Nash Allen Williams & Wotton (P1 & 2)
Karageorge & Co (D1-3)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS [134], [137] - General contractual principles - Discharge, breach and defences to action for breach - Repudiation - Other particular cases - Intention not to perform obligation to maintain house provided under contract for occupation by mother - Election - Effect of commencement and abandonment of action for specific performance on right to terminate and sue for damages.

CASES CITED: Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] AC 356
Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409
Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Limited (1976) 136 CLR 444
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank [1941] AC 1
Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275
Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 179
Carter, J W Breach of Contract (2nd ed, 1991) [1015]
Carter, J W "Acceptance of a Repudiation" (1994) 7 Journal of Contract Law 156

DECISION: Party originally suing for specific performance entitled to terminate contract and sue for damages.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2000
1973/97 GLENN WOODS & 1 OR v DESRE CLAIR WOODS & 2 ORS
JUDGMENT
His Honour:
1 This is another episode in unfortunately bitter and protracted litigation between mother and son. In Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275 I decided, on 31 March 1999, that in consideration of the mother, Desre Clair Woods (Desre”), contributing $11,500 to the purchase of a property at 24 Waite Street, Bateau Bay (“the property”) the son, Glenn Woods (“Glenn”), and his wife, Marcia Woods (“Marcia”), agreed that she would be permitted to live in the property for life and that Glenn and Marcia would continue to pay the mortgage payments in respect of it (“the contract”). I held that Desre was entitled to a declaration of the subsistence of the contract, which had been denied by Glenn and Marcia. There had not at that stage been full argument as to whether Desre should have an order for specific performance, which up to that time had been the principal remedy that she claimed. Objection had been taken on behalf of Glenn and Marcia that the requirement of supervision by the Court of the payment of future mortgage instalments ought preclude such an order. The matter was then stood over for further hearing on the issues of relief. There was therefore no judgment in Desre’s favour for specific performance in any form, only…

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.

Continue reading Woods v Woods

Details

AGLC: Woods v Woods [2000] NSWSC 851
Case: [2000] NSWSC 851
Decision Date: 30 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods v Woods involved a dispute between the parties, Woods and Woods, regarding the maintenance of a house provided under a contract for the mother's occupation. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining whether the party claiming breach of contract could terminate the contract and seek damages. The central issue before the court was whether the party claiming breach of contract had effectively repudiated the contract by demonstrating an intention not to perform their obligation to maintain the house. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the effect of the commencement and abandonment of an action for specific performance on the right to terminate the contract and sue for damages.

The court examined the conduct of the party claiming breach of contract and assessed whether it demonstrated an intention not to perform the obligation to maintain the house. It was found that the party's actions and statements indicated a clear repudiation of the contract. The court further considered the effect of the commencement and subsequent abandonment of an action for specific performance on the right to terminate the contract and sue for damages. It was held that the abandonment of the action for specific performance did not prevent the party from terminating the contract and seeking damages for the breach. The court ruled that the party claiming breach of contract could terminate the contract and pursue damages as a result of the repudiation.

Consequently, the court determined that the party claiming breach of contract had the right to terminate the contract and sue for damages. The court found that the repudiation by the other party, coupled with the abandonment of the action for specific performance, justified the termination and the pursuit of damages. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the implications of repudiation and the effect of actions for specific performance on the right to terminate a contract and seek damages. The court's ruling in this case provides valuable guidance for parties involved in similar disputes concerning contractual obligations and the consequences of repudiation.

Orders