6 Aug 2020
The applicant breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide a development plan and to take reasonable steps to enable the condition's fulfilment; because the non-fulfilment resulted from the applicant's default it could not cancel, the respondent validly cancelled for repudiation and was entitled to release and retention of the deposit.
20 Apr 2020
LCH had prepared but refused to submit the Development Plan; under express contractual terms (cls 10.8(2) and 42.1) it was obliged to take all reasonably necessary steps to enable fulfilment of the Development Plan condition, and its failure to submit was its default which disentitled it to cancel; an implied term that the Development Plan must be economically viable could not be read into the contract as it conflicted with express terms; summary judgment dismissing the purchaser's claim and upholding vendor's claim for release of deposits under cl 26.1(b)(i) was appropriate.
28 Nov 2014
The agreement contains two separate, identifiable supplies: (a) capital sale of land and existing tenanted buildings at settlement; and (b) separate supply of letting and construction services under the development option performed after title passed to AMP. Development payments were consideration for services supplied to a third party and are income and taxable. Shortfall penalties were not imposed because the taxpayer's position was rationally arguable and the Authority had accepted it.