GOLDMAN SACHS (AUSTRALIA) LTD v SBCDB ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD [1993] NSWCA 110

Performance of the covenant to notify in the proviso to clause 18.1(d) was not essential to the valid exercise of the option; it was not a precondition or condition precedent.

Parties: Appellant: GOLDMAN SACHS (AUSTRALIA) LTD; Respondent: SBCDB ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 June 1993
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: Options in Leases, Conditions Precedent, Specific Performance

Contract Law Property Law Options in Leases Conditions Precedent Specific Performance

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

GOLDMAN SACHS (AUSTRALIA) LTD

Appellant

SBCDB ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Is performance of the covenant in the proviso to clause 18.1(d) essential to the valid exercise of the option under the sublease?
2 Was the respondent's failure to notify a failure to fulfil a condition precedent or a promissory condition requiring strict or substantial performance?

Ratio Decidendi

Performance of the covenant to notify in the proviso to clause 18.1(d) was not essential to the valid exercise of the option; it was not a precondition or condition precedent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

The appeal is dismissed with costs.
The orders made by Brownie J are affirmed.