Kent v Ireland (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 870

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Kent v Ireland (No 2) [2004] NSWSC 870 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/08/04, 24/08/04, 25/08/04, 26/08/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Gzell J DECISION : Declaration that contract not valid be extended. Contract not void for uncertainity nor subject to rectification. Plaintiff limited to compensation in terms of formula in the contract. Defendant entitled to outstanding licence fees and outgoings and to possession.

CATCHWORDS : CONTRACTS - General Contractual Principles - Construction and Interpretation of Contracts - Whether option to extend contract could be exercised when party was in breach of terms as to payment of licence fees and outgoings - Whether contract void for uncertainty - Whether contract should be rectified to include provisions of earlier contract omitted from later one - Whether general damages available in addition to formula for compensation in the contract - Cross claim for outstanding licence fees and outgoings and possession of site - No priniciples involved PARTIES : Paul Kent - Plaintiff John Ireland T/as Sunnybrook Hotel and Convention Centre - Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2572/03 COUNSEL : Mr Kent - Plantiff (In Person) Mr G M Colman - Defendant SOLICITORS : Dibbs Barker Gosling Lawyers

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

TUESDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 2004

2572/03 PAUL KENT v JOHN IRELAND T/AS SUNNYBROOK HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTRE (N0 2) JUDGMENT 1 The defendant, John Ireland, owned the Sunnybrook Hotel and Convention Centre at Warwick Farm. It contained a tennis complex. The plaintiff, Paul Kent, operated the tennis complex under licence. Mr Kent fell behind in payments due under the licence agreement. He purported to exercise an option to extend the licence agreement. He claimed damages for breach of the licence agreement and specific performance of the extended agreement. Mr Ireland claimed a declaration that the purported exercise of the option was invalid, a declaration that the licence agreement was void for uncertainty, rectification of the licence agreement, an order for payment of outstanding amounts and an order for possession. These seven claims constituted the issues in the case.