These two matters were heard together by Parker J in the period 2 April – 12 April 2024. Judgment in both matters is currently reserved. In summary, the proceedings involved claims for damages for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct, claims for unpaid rent, a claim for specific performance and a claim under a guarantee. Issues concerning the application of section 117 of the Conveyancing Act and principles derived from Walsh v Lonsdale were also raised.
One of the issues in this case concerned whether specific performance, as opposed to damages, was an appropriate approach in circumstances where the plaintiff sought orders for specific performance of a binding term sheet which provided for the declaration of a dividend sourced from conduit foreign income and then for a declaration of trust. The Cout made orders for specific performance.
This expedited matter was heard by Meek J on 11-18 July 2022. The dispute concerned various put and call option deeds relating to a block of 10 residential home units which were to be sold in one line to a purchaser. Relevant interdependent contracts for sale were exchanged with a single conveyancer authorised to liaise with the purchaser and to give permissions and receive notices under deeds. Claims for declaratory relief, specific performance and damages (including equitable damages) were made in circumstances where the interdependent contracts of sale had been terminated after Notices to Complete had been served and not complied with by the purchaser. As noted in the Real Property section of this web-site, principles regarding electronic conveyancing were raised including the duty to cooperate in the context of PEXA settlement.
In addition, questions concerning a conveyancers duty of care (at paragraphs [296]-[306]) were raised. See the practice area, Insurance - Professional Indemnity - Licensed Conveyancers on this web-site for further details on this area. Further, questions concerning Notices to Complete requirements and the availability of equitable remedies where allegations of clean hands and delay were raised. In relation to specific performance, questions whether the vendors were ready, willing and able to complete the respective contracts for sale and whether the doctrine of unclean hands were raised such that the sought after remedy was lost. Finally, the matter also raised questions of contractual illegality referred to in the Contract Law practice area section of this web-site.
This matter involved an application under section 57 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and sections 232, 233, 237, 247A, 290, 461 and 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It also involved an application for declaratory relief concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement as well as specific performance of that agreement.
These proceedings involved claims for declarations and damages as well as specific performance of various agreements which facilitated parties to mine iron ore. Claims were made that there had been a failure by the defendants to pay royalties in accordance with the relevant agreements. In addition, claims were made for restitution and rectification. The matter also involved a number of interlocutory applications. Further details of this matter are set out on this website under the following Practice Areas, Contract Law; Equity and Trusts –Declaratory relief; Equity and Trusts – Restitutionary claims; and, Practice and Procedure.
