The Court found that a disputed lease agreement was a forgery, based on expert handwriting evidence, the court's own observations of the document, credibility findings adverse to the party relying on the document (who had prior convictions for forging property documents), inconsistencies among corroborating witnesses, contemporaneous documents inconsistent with signing, and the absence of any original. The Briginshaw standard was satisfied notwithstanding that forgery was not specifically pleaded, because the opposing party suffered no material prejudice and the issue was squarely in contest at trial. The Court held that the vendor's purported termination of the first contracts of sale was invalid because no compliant notice under cl 1.5 of the General Conditions had been given, and the finance condition was satisfied once finance approval was obtained, such that subsequent expiry of the approval did not retrospectively revive the condition. The later competing contracts automatically terminated under their own special conditions when caveats remained on title at the settlement date, and the purchaser under those contracts could not unilaterally waive conditions that also protected the vendor.
The full text is available to signed-in members.