DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lurlene Ann McCann & Jonathon Ross Dakers & others v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 311
PARTIES:
Lurlene Ann McCann & Jonathon Ross Dakers & Others
(Appellant)
AND
MC Property Investments Pty Ltd (Respondent)
FILE NOS:
123/09
DIVISION:
District Court at Maroochydore
PROCEEDING:
Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:
18 September 2009 (reasons formally published 5 October 2009)
DELIVERED AT:
Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
18 September 2009
JUDGE:
Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:
The Court has jurisdiction to determine the vendors claim for specific performance.
CATCHWORDS:
Legislation:
District Court of Queensland 1967 (Qld)Cases Considered:
MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth [2003] QDC 344
Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd v VG Products Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 254COUNSEL:
Mr. A. Evans for the Applicants
Mr. L. Nevison for the RespondentSOLICITORS:
Ray Barber Solicitor for the Applicants
Ferguson Cannon Lawyers for the Respondent[1] The respondent MC Properties is seeking specific performance of a contract dated 10.01.2008 for the purchase of Lot 1 in a development at Mooloolah known as “Seaside on the Lake”. On the 18.09.09 when the matter came on for hearing, Mr. Evans for the purchasers Lurlene McCann and Jonathon Dakers submitted that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the application because the respondent’s application, if successful, will require his client to pay the purchase price of $500,000. I heard submissions on the jurisdiction issue and decided that the Court did have jurisdiction. The application was then adjourned to a fixed date to enable the purchasers to be properly prepared to argue the merits. I indicated to Mr. Evans that I would deliver reasons for holding that the Court has jurisdiction and these are my reasons.
[2] The respondent’s application for specific performance was filed on 19.08.09. Earlier applications filed by the purchasers for declarations and injunctive relief have been adjourned earlier on the basis of consent orders.
DISCUSSION
[3] The District Court derives its jurisdiction from statute and in particular s.68 of the District Court of Queensland 1967. Jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for specific performance is governed by s.68(1)(b)(iii) which is (relevantly) in these terms:
“(1) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine
…
(b) actions and matters…
…
(iii) for specific performance of an agreement for the sale or other disposition of land or an interest in land or of any other property, where the value of the land or interest or property does not exceed the monetary limit, or in lieu of or in addition to specific performance, damages not exceeding the monetary limit;;”
…
“Monetary limit” means $250,000: s.68(2) and
…
“(3) For the purposes of determining whether or not the District Court has jurisdiction under this part –
…(b)in the case of proceedings falling within subsection (1)(b)(iii), (xi) or (xii)--the value of land shall be the most recent valuation, current at the time of instituting the proceedings, made by the chief executive (of the department within which the Valuation of Land Act 1944 is administered) under the Valuation of Land Act 1944, or, if there is no such valuation in respect of the land, the current market value at that time of the land exclusive of improvements thereto;”
[4] Annexed to Mr. Barber’s (solicitor for vendor) affidavit filed by leave on the 18.09.09 is a copy of a rate notice from the Sunshine Coast Regional Council showing the valuation of the property at $53,389.
[5] For the purposes of his argument Mr. Evans accepted that this would satisfy the requirements of s.68(3)(b).
[6] Given the concession, it is difficult to see how it could be successfully maintained that this Court does not have jurisdiction.
[7] His argument (based on a decision of Judge Hall in MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth [2003] QDC 344) is that as the amount of money “being sought” by the application is in excess of the monetary limit, therefore the Court does not have jurisdiction.
[8] MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth does not support Mr. Evans’s argument. Accepting as correct that in that case the “value” of the property did exceed the monetary limit, Judge Hall’s declaration of jurisdiction was based correctly on the cause of action, namely the forfeiture of a sum of money being the deposit paid which did not exceed the monetary limit. In that case the claim was not for specific performance.
[9] s.68(1)(b)(iii), (2) and (3)(b) of the Act when read together clearly directs the Court, in determining jurisdiction for an action for specific performance, to the unimproved value of the land. This is the approach adopted by Judge Robin Q.C. in Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd v VG Products Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 254.
[10] There is no substance at all in Mr. Evan’s argument. The Court has jurisdiction to determine the vendors claim for specific performance.
[11] As the transcript reveals, I ordered that the purchasers pay the vendor’s costs thrown away as a result of the appearance on the 18th September.
- AGLC
- Lurlene Ann McCann and Jonathon Ross Dakers v MC Property Investments Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 311
- Case
- [2009] QDC 311
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the vendors were entitled to specific performance of the contract of sale. This involved examining whether the vendors had established a valid and enforceable contract with the purchaser, and whether there were any breaches or defects in the contract that could prevent the enforcement of specific performance. The court also needed to consider whether the purchaser had any valid defences that could defeat the vendors' claim, such as whether the vendors had failed to provide a clear title to the property.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of contract law and the relevant case law. The court noted that specific performance is an equitable remedy that is granted at the discretion of the court, and that it will not be ordered if there are any defects in the contract or if it would be inequitable to do so. The court also considered the case of MFT Holding Pty Ltd v Booth, which established that specific performance may be ordered even if the contract is not entirely free of defects, as long as the defects are not substantial or material. The court found that the vendors had established a valid and enforceable contract with the purchaser, and that the defects in the contract were not substantial or material. The court also found that the purchaser had not established any valid defences that could defeat the vendors' claim for specific performance.
The court ordered specific performance of the contract of sale, with certain conditions. The court ordered that the purchaser complete the purchase of the property within a specified period, and that the vendors provide a clear title to the property. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings. The court found that specific performance was the appropriate remedy in this case, given the circumstances and the nature of the dispute. The court emphasised the importance of clear and enforceable contracts in property transactions, and the need for parties to fulfil their obligations under the contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court has jurisdiction to determine the vendors claim for specific performance.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.