13 February 2012

Mirvac loses High Court bid in battle over flood-affected Tennyson apartment

Swamped: Tennyson went under
 during Brisbane's floods. 

A PROPERTY developer has failed in a bid to get High Court special leave to appeal a decision which allowed a buyer to rescind a contract to buy a multimillion-dollar unit which was made uninhabitable by last year's Brisbane floods.

It was the final chapter in an ongoing case which was seen as a test case over whether a buyer could void a contract following the flood damage which ravaged Brisbane in January last year.

Maris Anne Dunworth had been in a lengthy dispute with the unit complex builders, Mirvac Queensland Pty Limited, but matters came to a head when the lower ground unit was inundated by floodwaters on January 13 last year.

In July 2007 Mrs Dunworth, the wife of former Wallabies footballer David Dunworth, agreed to buy the residential apartment in a proposed building at Tennyson, in Brisbane's inner south, for $2.155 million.

Before any completion of the contract, the by-then-completed building was flooded and it was necessary to remove the lower level of gyprock sheeting of the walls and to disconnect the electrical wiring and appliances.

Mirvac required four months to complete restoration work, which it offered to carry out on January 24.

However, Mrs Dunworth rejected the offer to restore the unit, and on January 28 purported to rescind the contract on the grounds that the unit had been rendered unfit for occupation.

The matter went to the Supreme Court in February where a judge found against Mrs Dunworth and gave Mirvac until June to complete the work.

Mrs Dunworth then appealed and in an unanimous judgment in August the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the Supreme Court orders and declared she had validly rescinded her contract with Mirvac on January 28.

The court awarded costs to Mrs Dunworth.

Mirvac then went to the High Court last week seeking special leave to appeal the Queensland Court of Appeal decision.

But on Friday the High Court refused the application and ordered costs against Mirvac.

www.CourierMail.com.au
13.2.12