VOTRAINT No. 1046 P/L v UREN [1999] NSWSC 464

VOTRAINT No. 1046 P/L v UREN [1999] NSWSC 464

Although a lease by Optus Mobile Pty Limited would satisfy the lessee identity contemplated by the Fee Agreement when read as a whole, the contractual contingencies for payment of the fee were not fulfilled by 31 August 1998 because there was no accepted lease executed by Optus and no surrender executed by Tasman. Informal occupation and payment of rent did not constitute exact compliance with clause 5.1. Under clause 5.2 the Fee Agreement terminated and Votraint was under no obligation to pay the fee.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Concerning a Fee Agreement in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales / Judgment on the Plaintiff's Claim and the First Defendant's Cross Claim
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded; first defendant's cross-claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contract Construction' 'fee Agreement' 'condition Precedent' 'contingent Fee' 'executed Lease' 'tenancy at Will' 'stakeholder Funds' 'good Faith Obligation']
['contracts' 'equity'] ['contract Construction' 'fee Agreement' 'condition Precedent' 'contingent Fee' 'executed Lease' 'tenancy at Will' 'stakeholder Funds' 'good Faith Obligation']

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

Contract Dispute Concerning a Fee Agreement in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales / Judgment on the Plaintiff's Claim and the First Defendant's Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contingency in clause 5.1 requiring Votraint to accept a lease executed by Optus in the form of the Proposed Lease was satisfied when the proposed lessee was Optus Mobile Pty Limited rather than Optus Communications Limited.' 'Whether informal occupation and payment of rent by Optus before 31 August 1998 satisfied the contractual conditions for payment of the fee.' 'Whether the first defendant became entitled to the $35,000 fee or to the money paid into Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although a lease by Optus Mobile Pty Limited would satisfy the lessee identity contemplated by the Fee Agreement when read as a whole, the contractual contingencies for payment of the fee were not fulfilled by 31 August 1998 because there was no accepted lease executed by Optus and no surrender executed by Tasman. Informal occupation and payment of rent did not constitute exact compliance with clause 5.1. Under clause 5.2 the Fee Agreement terminated and Votraint was under no obligation to pay the fee.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded; first defendant's cross-claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Declared that the first defendant is not entitled and cannot now become entitled to payment of the fee of $35,000 referred to in clause 5 of the Fee Agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant dated 22 October 1997.' 'Ordered that the moneys paid into Court in pursuance of the order of 4 March 1999 by...