Lombok Pty Ltd v. Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 79

Lombok Pty Ltd v. Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 79

The commencement of proceedings by the purchaser did not constitute repudiation; neither party was entitled to rescind while in breach or without intention to perform. Both sides' purported rescission was ineffective. The contracts were mutually abandoned, and payments of deposit and interest are recoverable by the purchaser, but no interest on the refunded sums is payable. Costs are to be allocated as ordered by the trial judge, with both appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Lombok Pty. Limited; Respondent/appellant: Supetina Pty. Limited; Respondent/appellant: Avionne Joy Vincent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge in the Federal Court of Australia / Judgment of the Full Court (appellate)
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed, each with costs.
Legal Topics
Repudiation of Contract, Mutual Abandonment, Restitution/unjust Enrichment, Instalment Contract, Statutory Restriction on Rescission, Recovery of Deposit, Recovery of Interest, Costs, Misrepresentation, Negligent Mis Statement
Contract Law Property Law Equity Trade Practices Repudiation of Contract Mutual Abandonment Restitution/unjust Enrichment Instalment Contract +6 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 8 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lombok Pty. Limited

Appellant/respondent

Supetina Pty. Limited

Respondent/appellant

Avionne Joy Vincent

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal From a Decision of a Single Judge in the Federal Court of Australia / Judgment of the Full Court (appellate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commencement of proceedings constituted repudiation of contract entitling vendor to rescind
  2. 2 Whether payments of deposit and interest under mutually abandoned contract are returnable
  3. 3 Whether party in breach can rescind or accept repudiation

Ratio Decidendi

The commencement of proceedings by the purchaser did not constitute repudiation; neither party was entitled to rescind while in breach or without intention to perform. Both sides' purported rescission was ineffective. The contracts were mutually abandoned, and payments of deposit and interest are recoverable by the purchaser, but no interest on the refunded sums is payable. Costs are to be allocated as ordered by the trial judge, with both appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed, each with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant Lombok Pty. Limited pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed.