2025/00213714
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 4/6/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 286.3 KB) |
| 23/7/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 423.8 KB) |
| 2/9/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 461.9 KB) |
| 11/9/2025 | Appellant | Submissions in Reply (PDF, 383.1 KB) |
| 11/9/2025 | Appellant | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 76.3 KB) |
| 11/9/2025 | Respondent | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 498.0 KB) |
CONTRACT – on 17 April 2015, the appellant and respondent entered into an agreement entitled “Irrevocable Offers Deed Balance Land, Mt Gilead” (Deed) – the Deed provided for put and call options between the parties with respect to the purchase of land, comprising five separate lots (each, “Property”), owned by the respondent in Campbelltown – “Property” was defined as each part (i.e., each of the five lots) of the “Balance Land” as notified by the appellants pursuant to cl 7.1(b), with such notification to be accompanied by a plan of subdivision (Proposed Plan) “based upon” an existing plan as varied annexed to the Deed (Existing Plan) – the Deed provided for the commencement of a “Sale Offer Period” (i.e., the call period) for each of the “Proper[ies]”, each of which was to commence on the same day but conclude on varying dates as determined by reference to the date of completion of “Property” 6 (i.e., Lot 6), following which the “Purchase Offer Period” (i.e., the put period) would commence – as it transpired, the sale of “Property” 6 could not complete owing to the failure of certain conditions precedent – dispute arose as to the construction of cl 7.1 and the terms of the “Sale Offer Period” – the primary judge found that the Proposed Plan was ineffective to the extent it was not “based upon” the Existing Plan – further, the primary judge found that, owing to the failure to complete on “Property” 6, the “Sale Offer Period” on each of the other “Propert[ies]” could not end, and the “Purchase Offer Period” could not commence – the primary judge found that, in circumstances where “Property” 6 did not complete and where the Deed provided for the sequential and interdependent acquisition by the appellant of each “Property”, the appellant was not entitled to purchase the remaining “Propert[ies]” – whether the primary judge erred in construction of cl 7.1 – whether primary judge erred in finding appellants could not purchase remaining “Propert[ies]”
Last updated: