St Hilliers (Developments) Pty Ltd & Anor v Radmanovich & Anor [2002] NSWSC 524

St Hilliers (Developments) Pty Ltd & Anor v Radmanovich & Anor [2002] NSWSC 524

Although Clause 11.1 permitted assignment to Jennings with the Defendants' consent, the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendants' refusal of consent was unreasonable. Jennings had told Mr Radmanovich that it would not be able to provide access to the five retained lots as required because it had not secured rights over the adjoining land, and Jennings later gave only a broad assurance that it would be bound by the contract without explaining how it would comply. A reasonable person in the Defendants' position could have held concerns that Jennings would not use best endeavours to carry out the required subdivision and that performance under the contract would be unsatisfactory.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings by Summons Concerning Assignment of an Option to Purchase Land and Damages for Alleged Breach of the Option Deed / Final Judgment on Amended Summons
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['vendor and Purchaser' 'option to Purchase' 'assignment With Consent' 'unreasonable Refusal of Consent' 'specific Performance' 'damages for Breach of Contract']
['real Property' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['vendor and Purchaser' 'option to Purchase' 'assignment With Consent' 'unreasonable Refusal of Consent' 'specific Performance' 'damages for Breach of Contract']

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

Equity Proceedings by Summons Concerning Assignment of an Option to Purchase Land and Damages for Alleged Breach of the Option Deed / Final Judgment on Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, on the true construction of the Option Deed, the Plaintiffs were entitled to assign their rights to Jennings in accordance with Clause 11.1 with the consent of the Defendants.' 'If assignment was permitted, whether in the events which happened the Defendants unreasonably refused their consent to the proposed assignment to Jennings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Clause 11.1 permitted assignment to Jennings with the Defendants' consent, the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendants' refusal of consent was unreasonable. Jennings had told Mr Radmanovich that it would not be able to provide access to the five retained lots as required because it had not secured rights over the adjoining land, and Jennings later gave only a broad assurance that it would be bound by the contract without explaining how it would comply. A reasonable person in the Defendants' position could have held concerns that Jennings would not use best endeavours to carry out the required subdivision and that performance under the contract would be unsatisfactory.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiffs' claim fails." 'The Amended Summons will be dismissed with costs.' 'The Exhibits may be returned.']