1 Mar 2021
Given payment of the purchase price and selection of Lot 5, the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable equitable interest in the property and, because material uncertainties existed about the operation and date-effect of the sunset clause and the settlement date, it was not patently clear the caveat could not be maintained; accordingly the caveat was ordered not to lapse.
20 Oct 2011
The contract, read as a whole and applying ordinary principles of contractual construction, unambiguously fixed settlement on the possession date of 18 December 2006 (cl 1.1(3) and cl 3.7); clause 15, properly interpreted, evidenced an agreement that the vendor could lodge a caveat to protect the unpaid balance once title passed on that date and reinforces that settlement was intended to be 18 December 2006; because title could have passed then the defendants were not in breach by not making further payments and the plaintiffs' resale loss is not attributable to any contractual breach by the…
28 Mar 2011
The Court held Hudson Bay was entitled to exercise the clause 20.1 put option because settlement of the purchase of the defined 'property' (lot 2) had not occurred by 22 December 2008; there was no binding variation, waiver or estoppel preventing Hudson Bay from exercising that right, and it was not appropriate to imply the additional terms sought by the defendants to alter the settlement sequence; consequently the defendants' counterclaims failed.
22 Nov 2006
Given the earlier order for specific performance, the court substituted the settlement date to 22 December (2006) and directed that the plaintiff be treated as ready, willing and able to settle on that date, with remaining issues to be resolved by reference to the terms of the sale and purchase agreement because the court cannot impose obligations or benefits outside the contract.
22 Nov 2006
The court substituted the settlement date to 22 December 2006 and ordered that the parties must effect settlement under the existing agreement for sale and purchase; the court refused to give further detailed directions and held it cannot impose terms not contained in the contract.
21 Jun 2005
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld specific performance subject to variation: it set a definite settlement date, applied the contractual interest provision for the specified period, and awarded costs to the respondents; these measures implement equitable discretion to enforce contractual obligations while adapting the decree to current circumstances.