King v Potts [2015] NSWLEC 22

King v Potts [2015] NSWLEC 22

The heads of agreement between the parties only extinguish the applicant’s original cause of action upon performance; a term of contractual cooperation is implied requiring the applicant to do all reasonably necessary to obtain owners corporation consent for the required development application. There is no basis for ordering compensation as the extra costs are not attributable to unreasonable conduct of the respondent, but arose from Council requirements and legal necessity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Consent Orders Following Hearing; Determination of Compensation Request
Outcome
Consent orders made by agreement. Compensation refused.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'building Works' 'compromise Agreements' 'owners Corporation Consent' 'implied Contractual Obligations']
['environmental Planning' 'strata Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Consent' 'building Works' 'compromise Agreements' 'owners Corporation Consent' 'implied Contractual Obligations']

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

Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Consent Orders Following Hearing; Determination of Compensation Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondent carried out works on common property without required development consent' "Whether heads of agreement extinguished applicant's cause of action when entered into or only upon performance" 'Whether applicant required to do all reasonably necessary (as implied obligation of cooperation) to obtain owners corporation consent for development application' "Whether proposed consent orders (specific performance) should include compensation for extra costs allegedly caused by respondent's conduct"]

Ratio Decidendi

The heads of agreement between the parties only extinguish the applicant’s original cause of action upon performance; a term of contractual cooperation is implied requiring the applicant to do all reasonably necessary to obtain owners corporation consent for the required development application. There is no basis for ordering compensation as the extra costs are not attributable to unreasonable conduct of the respondent, but arose from Council requirements and legal necessity.

Court Disposition

Consent orders made by agreement. Compensation refused.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to prepare a development application and construction certificate generally in the form of the document at pp 137-154 of Exhibit A (except for substitution of Exhibit F for the plan at p 154) by 4pm on 23 February 2014 and submit it to the applicant for signature.' 'The applicant is to sign the...