Woodward v Nagel - [2003] QSC 100

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woodward & Anor v Nagel [2003] QSC 100

PARTIES:

VANCE ERIC WOODWARD and LAURA MARIANA WOODWARD
(applicants)
v
ROBERT JOHN NAGEL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC3000/03

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

11 April 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2003

JUDGE:

McMurdo J

ORDER:

Declare that the contract between the applicants and the respondent dated 26 February 2003, for the sale of land situation at 4 Redleaf Court, Birtinya, being Lot 128 on SP125364 in the County of Canning, Parish of Bribie, is enforceable against the respondent, and that it ought to be performed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – where contract for sale of land contained special condition for the sole benefit of the applicants who were entitled to waive the special condition – where respondent sought to terminate the contract for non-fulfilment of the special condition – whether applicants’ waived the special condition prior to termination by the respondent – whether applicants entitled to specific performance of the contract

Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537, applied

COUNSEL:

A J Macklin for the applicants
M Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Quinn & Scattini for the applicants
Boyce Garrick Lawyers for the respondent

McMURDO J: By a contract dated 26 February 2003, the applicants agreed to purchase from the respondent a house at 4 Readleaf Court, Birtinya. The contract provides for a settlement date of 24 April 2003. The respondent has purported to terminate the contract, for non-fulfilment of a special condition. The applicants claim that the condition was inserted only for their benefit, and they were entitled to waive it. They claim to have waived it prior to the respondent’s termination. By this application, they seek a declaration that the contract is enforceable against the respondent, and they seek orders for its specific performance.

The relevant special condition is as follows:

“1. This contract is subject to and conditional upon the completion of the sale of the buyers’ house situated at 16 Cygnet Court, Wurtulla, Q 4575 on or before the 26 March, 2003. The buyers agree to do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that completion of the said sale takes place by the stipulated time and in the event that the said sale is not completed by the stipulated time through no fault of the buyers, the contract shall be at an end and all monies paid by way of deposit shall be refunded without deduction.”

At least in the course of oral argument, it was common ground that this special condition was for the benefit of the applicants as purchasers who were entitled to waive it. Mr Martin, who appeared for the respondent, also conceded that the applicants were entitled to waive it beyond the period for its fulfilment, that is beyond 26 March, a long as they did so before any termination by the respondent. In effect, each of the parties treated this situation as analogous to that in Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd

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 Woodward v Nagel

Details

AGLC: Woodward v Nagel [2003] QSC 100
Case: [2003] QSC 100
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woodward v Nagel involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. The applicants, Woodward, entered into a contract with the respondent, Nagel, for the sale of a property located at 4 Redleaf Court, Birtinya. A special condition was included in the contract, which was for the sole benefit of the applicants. The respondent sought to terminate the contract on the grounds that the special condition was not fulfilled. The applicants, however, argued that they had waived the special condition prior to the respondent's termination of the contract. The applicants sought specific performance of the contract, and the court had to determine whether the applicants were entitled to this remedy.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had effectively waived the special condition prior to the respondent terminating the contract. If the applicants had waived the condition, then the respondent's termination of the contract would be invalid, and the applicants would be entitled to specific performance. The court had to examine the terms of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the waiver to determine whether the applicants had indeed waived the special condition. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicants were entitled to specific performance of the contract.

The court found that the applicants had effectively waived the special condition prior to the respondent terminating the contract. The court noted that the applicants had expressly stated in writing that they waived the special condition, and that this waiver was communicated to the respondent. The court held that the respondent's termination of the contract was therefore invalid, and that the applicants were entitled to specific performance. The court further held that the contract was enforceable against the respondent, and that it ought to be performed.

In conclusion, the court declared that the contract between the applicants and the respondent for the sale of land at 4 Redleaf Court, Birtinya, was enforceable against the respondent, and that it ought to be performed. The court found that the applicants had waived the special condition prior to the respondent terminating the contract, and that the applicants were therefore entitled to specific performance. The court's decision provides clarity on the enforceability of contracts that contain special conditions for the sole benefit of one party, and the circumstances in which such conditions may be waived.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declare that the contract between the applicants and the respondent dated 26 February 2003, for the sale of land situation at 4 Redleaf Court, Birtinya, being Lot 128 on SP125364 in the County of Canning, Parish of Bribie, is enforceable against the respondent, and that it ought to be performed.

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:	Woodward & Anor v Nagel [2003] QSC 100
PARTIES:	VANCE ERIC WOODWARD and LAURA MARIANA WOODWARD (applicants) v ROBERT JOHN NAGEL (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC3000/03
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2003
JUDGE:	McMurdo J
ORDER:	Declare that the contract between the applicants and the respondent dated 26 February 2003, for the sale of land situation at 4 Redleaf Court, Birtinya, being Lot 128 on SP125364 in the County of Canning, Parish of Bribie, is enforceable against the respondent, and that it ought to be performed.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS – where contract for sale of land contained special condition for the sole benefit of the applicants who were entitled to waive the special condition – where respondent sought to terminate the contract for non-fulfilment of the special condition – whether applicants’ waived the special condition prior to termination by the respondent – whether applicants entitled to specific performance of the contract Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537, applied
COUNSEL:	A J Macklin for the applicants M Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Quinn & Scattini for the applicants Boyce Garrick Lawyers for the respondent