Phillip Segal & Anor v Max Christopher Donnelly & Ors [2012] NSWSC 833

Phillip Segal & Anor v Max Christopher Donnelly & Ors [2012] NSWSC 833

The emails of 2 May 2012 did not amount to a legally binding contract between the registered proprietors and the plaintiffs. Even if they amounted to a unilateral contract, the Trustee was entitled not to accept the plaintiffs' offer because the plaintiffs did not provide the required bank cheque for the deposit, the purchaser was not properly identified, and the plaintiffs did not prove timely electronic transfer or confirmation of the deposit by 5 pm. Any alleged binding contract or variation also failed for non-compliance with s 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the asserted acts of part performance were insufficient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Specific Performance of Alleged Contract for Sale of Land and Cross Claim for Removal of Caveat / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed; order made on the Cross-Claim for removal of the caveat.
Legal Topics
['formation of Contract for Sale of Land' 'unilateral Contract' 'specific Performance' 'sale by Tender Process' 'authority of Solicitor' 'caveat Removal' 's 66 G Trustees' 's 54 a Conveyancing Act 1919']
['contract' 'property Law' 'equity'] ['formation of Contract for Sale of Land' 'unilateral Contract' 'specific Performance' 'sale by Tender Process' 'authority of Solicitor' 'caveat Removal' 's 66 G Trustees' 's 54 a Conveyancing Act 1919']

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

Equity Proceedings Concerning Specific Performance of Alleged Contract for Sale of Land and Cross Claim for Removal of Caveat / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the emails evidenced an intention by the registered proprietors to be legally bound to sell the Property to the plaintiffs if the plaintiffs tendered the highest offer with an executed sale contract and deposit by the stated time.' 'Whether the plaintiffs complied with any required tender conditions, including provision of a bank cheque or company cheque for the deposit and identification of the purchaser.' 'Whether any alleged email contract or variation was enforceable consistently with s 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' "Whether the plaintiffs' caveat should be removed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The emails of 2 May 2012 did not amount to a legally binding contract between the registered proprietors and the plaintiffs. Even if they amounted to a unilateral contract, the Trustee was entitled not to accept the plaintiffs' offer because the plaintiffs did not provide the required bank cheque for the deposit, the purchaser was not properly identified, and the plaintiffs did not prove timely electronic transfer or confirmation of the deposit by 5 pm. Any alleged binding contract or variation also failed for non-compliance with s 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 and the asserted acts of part performance were insufficient.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed; order made on the Cross-Claim for removal of the caveat.

Orders

  • ['The Amended Summons is dismissed.' 'Order in paragraph 1 of the Cross-Claim for the removal of the Caveat lodged by the plaintiffs.' "Subject to any application being made within 14 days for an order otherwise, the plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings and the cross-claimants' costs of the...