Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 159

Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 159

On the proper construction of the Option Deed and annexed draft contract, the 'solicitor/conveyancer' for notice and payment purposes is the person identified in those documents unless notified otherwise; as no formal notice of change was given, service on Ms Tait was valid and the option exercised as required. The Option Deed is not void for uncertainty, the deposit was paid according to the contract, a binding contract resulted, the appellant had no right to terminate, specific performance was proper, and new grounds about change of solicitor could not be raised on appeal as they might have been met by evidence at trial.

Parties
Appellant: Iraklis Gary Coplin; First Respondent: Al Maha Pty Ltd (ACN 118 230 087); Second Respondent: Sophia Norma Bechara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From NSW Supreme Court, Equity – Real Property List ([2018] NSWSC 1623)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; notice of motion for leave to amend notice of appeal dismissed; costs to respondents.
Legal Topics
Conveyancing, Options in Property, Notices Under Contract, Specific Performance, Contract Uncertainty, Deposit Payment, Termination of Contract
Land Law Contract Law Equity Conveyancing Options in Property Notices Under Contract Specific Performance Contract Uncertainty +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iraklis Gary Coplin

Appellant

Al Maha Pty Ltd (ACN 118 230 087)

First Respondent

Sophia Norma Bechara

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From NSW Supreme Court, Equity – Real Property List ([2018] NSWSC 1623)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent validly exercised the call option under the Option Deed; whether notice of exercise delivered to the grantor's listed conveyancer satisfied contractual requirements; whether the Option Deed is void for uncertainty; whether the deposit was validly paid; whether resulting contract was valid and enforceable; whether the contract was validly terminated; whether specific performance should have been ordered; whether notice of change of conveyancer was properly given

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of the Option Deed and annexed draft contract, the 'solicitor/conveyancer' for notice and payment purposes is the person identified in those documents unless notified otherwise; as no formal notice of change was given, service on Ms Tait was valid and the option exercised as required. The Option Deed is not void for uncertainty, the deposit was paid according to the contract, a binding contract resulted, the appellant had no right to terminate, specific performance was proper, and new grounds about change of solicitor could not be raised on appeal as they might have been met by evidence at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; notice of motion for leave to amend notice of appeal dismissed; costs to respondents.

Orders

  • Notice of motion seeking leave to amend the notice of appeal dated 3 May 2019 dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed.