Australia, June 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 29:

1. I gave judgment in this matter on 8 April 2025. [1] I shall use the same abbreviations here.

2. Lendlease sought to enforce the rights it asserted it had under the Deed in relation to the Balance Land and sought declarations as to those rights. It also sought consequential orders, including damages.

3. Lendlease's case was run on the unstated, but obvious, assumption that the Deed was an enforceable contract.

4. I have found that, on the proper construction of the Deed, and in the events that have happened, Lendlease does not have the rights for which it contended and is not entitled to the relief it sought.

5. Understandably, Lendlease did not seek determination of the consequences, so far as concerns the status of the Deed were it to fail to establish the entitlements for which it contended.

6. The only consequence that Lendlease sought to agitate was damages.

7. As I recorded in the judgment at [25], that question was agreed to be deferred, but that was on the basis that Mr Giles SC, who appeared with Mr Hughes and Ms Carr for Lendlease, said, "If I lose, it resolves it".

8. At [23] of the judgment I set out the issues that were posed for my determination. Neither party sought any order as to what the status of the Deed would be, following my determination of those issues.

9. During argument, I made inquiries of the parties, particularly the Landowners, as to what findings I might make so far as concerns the status of the Deed.

10. On that topic, at the conclusion of my judgment, I said: [2]

"I have not received comprehensive submissions as to the implications of these findings so far as concerns the current status of the Deed. Mr Coles submitted that "although not free from doubt, the better view is that either party has a right to terminate, but not for breach", having earlier submitted that "to go further than [reaching conclusions as to the Sale Offers and Purchase Offers] would be to enter unpleaded territory which sits outside the claims for relief in these proceedings". Mr Giles addressed no submissions on this question for the understandable reason that, on his case, the question did not arise."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1971a36e15aa4555cce036aa)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.