© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VSCA 27
Court of Appeal (Vic)
2003-04-10
WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and EAMES, JJ.A.
Original judgment source is linked above.
[1] See Thornton v. Bassett [1975] VicRp 41; [1975] V.R. 407 at 423 ff., per Pape, J.; Neeta (Epping) Pty. Ltd. v. Phillips [1974] HCA 18; (1974) 131 C.L.R. 286 at 299, per Barwick, C.J. and Jacobs, J.; Louinder v. Leis [1982] HCA 28; (1982) 149 C.L.R. 509 at 519 ff. per Mason, J., at 532-3 per Brennan, J.; Poort v. Development Underwriting (Victoria) Pty. Ltd. (No. 2) [1977] VicRp 52; [1977] V.R. 454 at 461-2 (F.C.).
[6] [1969] VicRp 112; [1969] V.R. 912 at 922.
[7] For example, see Poort v. Development Underwriting (Victoria) Pty. Ltd. (No.2), supra at 61-2; Nund v. McWaters [1982] VicRp 60; [1982] V.R. 575 at 583, per Brooking, J.; Mahred Nominees Pty. Ltd. v. Tulloch and Anor. (1991) V.Conv.R. 54-421 at 65,006.
[8] See Tropical Traders Ltd. v. Goonan [1964] HCA 20; (1964) 111 C.L.R. 41 at 53-5; Mehmet v. Benson, supra, at 305 per Barwick, C.J.; Thornton v. Bassett, supra, at 422 per Pape, J.
[10] cf. Webb v. Hughes [1850] EngR 321; (1870) L.R. 10 Eq. 281 at 286 per Sir Richard Malins, V.C.
[11] Thornton v. Bassett, supra, at 423; Neeta (Epping) Pty. Ltd. v. Phillips, supra, at 298-9.
[12] cf. Neeta (Epping) Pty. Ltd. v. Phillips, supra, at 299 per Barwick, C.J. and Jacobs, J.; United Scientific Holdings Ltd. v. Burnley Borough Council [1978] A.C. 904 at 928 per Lord Diplock; Louinder v. Leis, supra, at 524-7 per Mason, J.
[13] Mehmet v. Benson, supra, at 310 per Windeyer, J.
[14] cf. Louinder v. Leis, supra, particularly per Mason, J. at 523-7.
[15] (1983) V.Conv. R.54-003 at 62,109.
[17] Cf. DWJ Holdings Pty. Ltd. v. Carrides (1990) V.Conv.R. 54-361; Chelmaness Pty. Ltd. v. Tridalet Nominees Pty. Ltd. (1991) V.Conv.R. 54-399.
[18] (1998) V.Conv.R. 54-575 at 66,901.
Greydae Pty Ltd & Anor
Malilane Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] VSCA 27
"It is true that the waiver of the right to receive the $21,000 on 1 June 1973, amounted to an election not to rescind the contract for that breach, and that such an election, once made, cannot be retracted : see Tropical Traders Ltd. v. Goonan [1964] HCA 20; (1964) 111 C.L.R. 41 per Kitto, J. at 55. But this is not to say that if the vendor was by law permitted thereafter (by giving an appropriate notice to the purchaser) to fix a reasonable time for payment and thereby to make time again of the essence of the contract and in fact did so, the waiver is to be deemed to extend to the time thereby fixed. Does the law then permit the vendor again to make time of the essence in respect of the payment ... or, to use the words of Barry, J. in Bull v. Gaul [1950] VicLawRp 65; [1950] V.L.R. 377 at 380, to `engraft time by notice'? In my opinion it does."