Western Land Developments Pty Limited v Maganic Brothers and Sister Pty Limited (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 598

Western Land Developments Pty Limited v Maganic Brothers and Sister Pty Limited (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 598

Maganic breached the implied obligation of cooperation by importing concrete chip fill without prior consent, causing delay until 2 May 2013, but Western then breached the same obligation by refusing to sign the 2 May 2013 Development Application, which the Court found would probably have avoided the Land and Environment Court proceedings. Holding costs were to be allocated according to those periods of responsibility, Land and Environment Court costs and Council costs caused by the refusal to sign were recoverable against Western, and only 40 per cent of the concrete chip costs were allowable as a subdivision expense because the balance improved Lot 1 beyond what was associated with the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance of Settlement Agreement and Consequential Financial Adjustments / Second Judgment Determining Remaining Questions After Orders for Specific Performance
Outcome
Findings made on issues of principle concerning expenses, with parties directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order and proceedings adjourned for directions.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'settlement Agreement' 'implied Term of Cooperation' 'contractual Breach' 'subdivision Costs' 'rental Accounting' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings']
['contract' 'equity' 'property' 'planning and Environment'] ['specific Performance' 'settlement Agreement' 'implied Term of Cooperation' 'contractual Breach' 'subdivision Costs' 'rental Accounting' 'development Consent' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance of Settlement Agreement and Consequential Financial Adjustments / Second Judgment Determining Remaining Questions After Orders for Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an implied term in the February 2011 settlement for each party to do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that the other party received the benefit of the agreement.' 'What rental monies were received by each party after the February 2011 settlement and what adjustments should be made between them.' 'What costs were associated with effecting the subdivision and to what extent those costs were incurred only because of the conduct of one or other party.' 'What expenses were incurred solely on account of Maganic improving its own lot in the subdivision, Lot 1, and whether Western should bear any part of those improvement expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

Maganic breached the implied obligation of cooperation by importing concrete chip fill without prior consent, causing delay until 2 May 2013, but Western then breached the same obligation by refusing to sign the 2 May 2013 Development Application, which the Court found would probably have avoided the Land and Environment Court proceedings. Holding costs were to be allocated according to those periods of responsibility, Land and Environment Court costs and Council costs caused by the refusal to sign were recoverable against Western, and only 40 per cent of the concrete chip costs were allowable as a subdivision expense because the balance improved Lot 1 beyond what was associated with the...

Court Disposition

Findings made on issues of principle concerning expenses, with parties directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order and proceedings adjourned for directions.

Orders

  • ['Direct the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order to give effect to these reasons.' 'Adjourn the proceedings for directions to 8 June 2016 at 9.30am.']