Ireland v Burnett [2019] NSWSC 1501

Ireland v Burnett [2019] NSWSC 1501

Summary judgment against the first defendant was warranted because the evidence adequately established the agreement for purchase of the Gooseneck trailer, supported a strong inference that registration was part of what the defendants were required to attend to, and the first defendant filed no defence and adduced no contrary evidence. The proposed consent orders strongly suggested acceptance or acknowledgment of liability for completion works and the engineering certificate. The prolonged failure to deliver the trailer, in a contract on foot for nearly three years, established breach at least of an obligation to build and deliver within a reasonable time, leaving damages to be assessed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Default Judgment in Relation to a Claimed Contract for the Purchase of a Gooseneck Horse Trailer / Amended Notice of Motion Filed 22 October 2019; Summary Judgment Application Heard on 28 October 2019
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the first defendant; specific performance ordered; matter stood over for damages to be assessed; no summary judgment entered against the second defendant at this stage.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'specific Performance' 'horse Trailer Construction and Purchase Agreement' 'failure to Deliver Within a Reasonable Time' 'registration for Road Use']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['summary Judgment' 'specific Performance' 'horse Trailer Construction and Purchase Agreement' 'failure to Deliver Within a Reasonable Time' 'registration for Road Use']

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

Application for Summary Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Default Judgment in Relation to a Claimed Contract for the Purchase of a Gooseneck Horse Trailer / Amended Notice of Motion Filed 22 October 2019; Summary Judgment Application Heard on 28 October 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs against the first defendant under r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the evidence established an agreement for construction, registration and delivery of the Gooseneck trailer and no triable defence by the first defendant.' 'Whether damages should stand to be assessed for breach of contract arising from failure to deliver the trailer within a reasonable time.']

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment against the first defendant was warranted because the evidence adequately established the agreement for purchase of the Gooseneck trailer, supported a strong inference that registration was part of what the defendants were required to attend to, and the first defendant filed no defence and adduced no contrary evidence. The proposed consent orders strongly suggested acceptance or acknowledgment of liability for completion works and the engineering certificate. The prolonged failure to deliver the trailer, in a contract on foot for nearly three years, established breach at least of an obligation to build and deliver within a reasonable time, leaving damages to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the first defendant; specific performance ordered; matter stood over for damages to be assessed; no summary judgment entered against the second defendant at this stage.

Orders

  • ['Summary judgment be entered for the plaintiffs against the first defendant.' 'Order that the first defendant take all steps necessary specifically to perform the agreement reached in October 2017 by completing within seven days all remaining works necessary for the construction of the Gooseneck trailer and...