MICOS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD v LAMONT [2002] NSWSC 95

MICOS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD v LAMONT [2002] NSWSC 95

The plaintiff established an enforceable agreement for the defendants to surrender the easements. The alleged limitation that the surrender was only for the Projceskis was not an express or implied term; Mrs Lamont was inferred to have left the matter to her husband and father and to have authorised them; objectively, the parties intended to be bound no later than about 20 August 2001; the agreement was not void for uncertainty; and section 54A was satisfied because Mr Lamont or Mr Hickey, or both, gave an appropriate note or memorandum on Mrs Lamont's behalf with her authority.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Action for Specific Performance of Contract to Surrender Easements / Judgment on Summons
Outcome
The plaintiff made out its case and was entitled to the declarations and orders sought in the summons; the matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'surrender of Easements' 'implied Terms' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'uncertainty' 'authority to Contract' 'section 54 a Conveyancing Act']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'property Law'] ['specific Performance' 'surrender of Easements' 'implied Terms' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'uncertainty' 'authority to Contract' 'section 54 a Conveyancing Act']

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

Action for Specific Performance of Contract to Surrender Easements / Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any agreement to surrender the easements contained an implied term that the surrender was only for the benefit of Mr Thode Projceski and his wife if they bought Lot 392.' 'Whether the second defendant agreed to or authorised the agreement to surrender the easements.' 'Whether the parties intended to enter into a legally binding agreement.' 'Whether the agreement was void for uncertainty.' 'Whether section 54A of the Conveyancing Act was satisfied in relation to Mrs Lamont.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established an enforceable agreement for the defendants to surrender the easements. The alleged limitation that the surrender was only for the Projceskis was not an express or implied term; Mrs Lamont was inferred to have left the matter to her husband and father and to have authorised them; objectively, the parties intended to be bound no later than about 20 August 2001; the agreement was not void for uncertainty; and section 54A was satisfied because Mr Lamont or Mr Hickey, or both, gave an appropriate note or memorandum on Mrs Lamont's behalf with her authority.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff made out its case and was entitled to the declarations and orders sought in the summons; the matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is entitled to the declarations and orders sought in the summons.' 'The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed.']