EATON v Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EATON v SELL LEASE PROPERTY PTY LTD

[2015] FCCA 3558

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Allegations of accessorial liability – joinder of alleged accessories – whether Court’s jurisdiction dependent on accessory having a certificate issued pursuant to s.368 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Zehnder v Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd trading as Sell Lease Property [2015] FCCA 3393

Applicant:

SIMONE EATON

Respondent:

SELL LEASE PROPERTY PTY LTD

File Number:

PEG 127 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Cameron

Hearing date:

4 December 2015

Date of Last Submission:

4 December 2015

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

4 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S. Heathcote

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Steve Heathcote Barrister & Solicitor

ORDERS

The applicant have leave to file and serve:
(a)an amended application; and
(b)a further amended Form 2,
on or before 18 December 2015.
The respondents file and serve a response to the amended application and further amended Form 2 by 15 January 2016.
The applicant file and serve any further affidavits on which she will rely on or before 29 January 2016.
The respondents file and serve any affidavits on which they will rely on by 19 February 2016.
The applicant file and serve any affidavits in reply on which she will rely on or before 4 March 2016.
The applicant file and serve an outline of submissions 14 days prior to trial.
The respondents file and serve an outline of submissions 7 days prior to trial.
The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 127 of 2015

SIMONE EATON

Applicant

And

SELL LEASE PROPERTY PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

For the reasons given in Zehnder v Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd trading as Sell Lease Property [2015] FCCA 3393, I make the following orders in this matter:
a)The applicant have leave to file and serve:
i)an amended application; and
ii)a further amended Form 2,
on or before 18 December 2015.
b)The respondents file and serve a response to the amended application and further amended Form 2 by 15 January 2016.
c)The applicant file and serve any further affidavits on which she will rely on or before 29 January 2016.
d)The respondents file and serve any affidavits on which they will rely on by 19 February 2016.
e)The applicant file and serve any affidavits in reply on which she will rely on or before 4 March 2016.
f)The applicant file and serve an outline of submissions 14 days prior to trial.
g)The respondents file and serve an outline of submissions 7 days prior to trial.
h)The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph is a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cameron

Associate:

Date: 22 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Eaton v Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Eaton, sought to have a caveat lodged by the respondent, Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd, removed from title. The dispute concerned the nature of the interest claimed by Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd, which asserted it held an equitable interest in the property pursuant to an option to purchase. Mr Eaton, the registered proprietor, argued that the option agreement was void for uncertainty and that Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd therefore had no caveatable interest. The matter came before Judge Cameron in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the option to purchase agreement was sufficiently certain to be enforceable, and consequently, whether Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd possessed a valid equitable interest in the property capable of supporting a caveat. This required the Court to consider the principles of contractual certainty, particularly in relation to agreements for the sale of land, and the requirements for establishing an equitable interest in land.

Judge Cameron found that the option agreement was void for uncertainty. His Honour reasoned that the agreement lacked essential terms, specifically a defined purchase price and a mechanism for its determination, which were fundamental to a contract for the sale of land. Without these essential terms, the agreement could not be construed as creating a binding obligation or a proprietary interest. Consequently, Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd did not have a caveatable interest in the property. The Court ordered that the caveat lodged by Sell Lease Property Pty Ltd be removed from the title.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established