ANZ Infrastructure Services v Spencer [2007] NSWSC 464

ANZ Infrastructure Services v Spencer [2007] NSWSC 464

The defendant was bound by clause 10 of the Deed to allow access to the property and not hinder removal of the monitoring mast and equipment, and his failure to provide access justified orders for specific performance. However, his attempts to renegotiate purchase or retention of the mast and to seek a Court ruling did not amount to high-handedness or contumelious disregard warranting exemplary damages, nor did the circumstances justify indemnity costs, particularly where other damages claims were abandoned and exemplary damages failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Summons Seeking Specific Performance and Related Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Specific performance ordered; defendant's undertaking not to interfere noted; exemplary damages and indemnity costs refused; costs awarded on a party/party basis.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'deed of Release' 'access to Property' 'removal of Wind Monitoring Equipment' 'exemplary Damages' 'injunction' 'indemnity Costs']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['specific Performance' 'deed of Release' 'access to Property' 'removal of Wind Monitoring Equipment' 'exemplary Damages' 'injunction' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Commercial List Summons Seeking Specific Performance and Related Relief / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be ordered specifically to perform clause 10 of the Deed of Settlement by giving access to the property for removal of the monitoring mast and equipment.' 'Whether the defendant should be restrained from hindering or otherwise interfering with the removal of the monitoring mast and equipment.' "Whether the defendant's conduct warranted exemplary damages." 'Whether the plaintiffs should receive indemnity costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was bound by clause 10 of the Deed to allow access to the property and not hinder removal of the monitoring mast and equipment, and his failure to provide access justified orders for specific performance. However, his attempts to renegotiate purchase or retention of the mast and to seek a Court ruling did not amount to high-handedness or contumelious disregard warranting exemplary damages, nor did the circumstances justify indemnity costs, particularly where other damages claims were abandoned and exemplary damages failed.

Court Disposition

Specific performance ordered; defendant's undertaking not to interfere noted; exemplary damages and indemnity costs refused; costs awarded on a party/party basis.

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 and 2 in the Summons filed on 16 March 2007 were made.' "By consent, the plaintiff is to give Mr Spencer one week's notice of the dates on which they will attend the property to commence and complete, pending weather conditions, the removal of the mast and equipment." "Such notice may be given by email to...