GPI Properties v Tweed Central [2009] NSWSC 992

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : GPI Properties v Tweed Central [2009] NSWSC 992

HEARING DATE(S) : 17/09/09

JUDGMENT DATE : 22 September 2009

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Macready AsJ at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 22 September 2009

DECISION : Paragraph 27

CATCHWORDS : Practice and procedure. Review of Registrar's decision on discovery. No matter of principle. Application dismissed.

PARTIES : GPI Properties Pty Ltd v Tweed Central Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4635/2008

COUNSEL : Mr D Bernie for plaintiff Mr AP Lo Surdo for defendant

SOLICITORS : HW Litigation for plaintiff Hickey Lawyers for defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

MACREADY AsJ

TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2009

4635/08 - GPI PROPERTIES PTY LIMITED v TWEED CENTRAL PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is the hearing of a notice of motion filed 10 June 2009 in which the plaintiff seeks a review of a decision of Registrar Musgrave dated 28 April 2009. 2 The Registrar had before him a motion filed 2 April 2009 seeking discovery of various categories of documents. The only contentious categories were those in 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6. The defendant had already agreed to give discovery of documents in 1.3 and 1.4. There was also a motion filed 1 April 2009 seeking to set aside the subpoenas to certain third parties. The Proceedings 3 These proceedings commenced in September 2009 now have a statement of claim. The plaintiff, as a purchaser under a contract of sale dated 3 August 2006, brings a claim seeking specific performance of that contract against the defendant vendor. The primary issue in the proceedings is whether the defendant was entitled to rescind the contract in reliance on cl 28. That issue, which required an approval of a plan of subdivision, will turn upon whether the defendant has complied with the obligations imposed on it under cl 28.2 of the contract in order to do everything reasonable to have a plan of subdivision registered within 18 months of the contract date. 4 The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not comply with cl 28.2 of the contract and therefore is not entitled to rescind. The alleged failure is asserted in para 8 of the statement of claim which contains detailed particulars and is in this form: "8. The defendant breached clause 28.2 by not doing everything reasonable to have the plan registered within 18 months of the contract date.