Scook v Premier Building Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors

(2003) 28 WAR 124; [2003] WASCA 263

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Summary judgment
3. › Appeal against summary judgment
4. › Whether real question to be tried
5. › Deeds
6. › Whether triable issues as to delivery and escrow conditions
1. Real Property
2. › Deeds
3. › Delivery
4. › Whether delivery required under Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 9(3)
5. › Whether s 9(3) dispenses with delivery or only formal delivery
6. › Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 9
1. Real Property
2. › Deeds
3. › Escrow
4. › Whether deed delivered as escrow subject to oral condition
5. › Whether oral condition inconsistent with written terms of deed
6. › Whether deed can be delivered as escrow to intended party
7. › Whether grantor entitled to renounce escrow for unreasonable delay
1. Equity
2. › Specific performance
3. › Readiness and willingness
4. › Whether evidence of readiness and willingness sufficient to support summary judgment

Quick Take

Section 9(3) of the Property Law Act 1969 (WA) does not dispense with the common law requirement of delivery of a deed; it merely confirms that no particular form of words or conduct is necessary. An oral condition attached to delivery of a deed as an escrow is not an impermissible parol variation of the deed's terms but a statement that the deed is not to take effect until the condition is fulfilled. In Australia, a grantor who has delivered a deed as an escrow cannot unilaterally renounce it upon the condition not being fulfilled within a reasonable time; equitable relief is required.