Ruthol Pty Ltd v Tricon (Aust) Pty Ltd; and Tricon (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ruthol Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1190

Ruthol Pty Ltd v Tricon (Aust) Pty Ltd; and Tricon (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ruthol Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1190

Ruthol's claim for rent failed because Tricon's continued occupation after 19 July 2001 resulted from Ruthol's own breach of the contract for sale and related litigation arising from Ruthol's fraud on Mr and Mrs Mills. Ruthol could not take advantage of that wrong, and in any event Tricon's damages for Ruthol's failure to complete were precisely the same as the rent otherwise payable, creating circuity of action. No deduction was made for interest notionally saved or earned because there was no evidence that Tricon would have borrowed the purchase price and it was not permissible to require a notional investment or borrowing analysis against the innocent party.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim for Unpaid Rent and Assessment of Damages for Breach of Contract for Sale / Ex Tempore Final Judgment in Transferred District Court Proceedings and Conclusion of Damages Assessment in Supreme Court Proceedings
Outcome
Judgment for Tricon in proceedings 5102 of 2004; damages in proceedings 4858 of 2001 assessed at nil by reason of that judgment; Ruthol ordered to pay Tricon's costs.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'damages' 'lease Holding Over Clause' 'option to Purchase' 'specific Performance' 'circuity of Action' 'party Not Permitted to Take Advantage of Its Own Wrong']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'equity'] ['breach of Contract' 'damages' 'lease Holding Over Clause' 'option to Purchase' 'specific Performance' 'circuity of Action' 'party Not Permitted to Take Advantage of Its Own Wrong']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim for Unpaid Rent and Assessment of Damages for Breach of Contract for Sale / Ex Tempore Final Judgment in Transferred District Court Proceedings and Conclusion of Damages Assessment in Supreme Court Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ruthol could recover rent from Tricon under the holding-over clause after the stipulated completion date of the contract for sale.' "Whether Ruthol's rent claim was barred by the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong." "Whether Ruthol's rent claim was defeated by circuity of action because Tricon's damages for Ruthol's failure to complete equalled the rent claimed." 'Whether any allowance should be made for interest notionally saved or earned by Tricon because completion did not occur on 19 July 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ruthol's claim for rent failed because Tricon's continued occupation after 19 July 2001 resulted from Ruthol's own breach of the contract for sale and related litigation arising from Ruthol's fraud on Mr and Mrs Mills. Ruthol could not take advantage of that wrong, and in any event Tricon's damages for Ruthol's failure to complete were precisely the same as the rent otherwise payable, creating circuity of action. No deduction was made for interest notionally saved or earned because there was no evidence that Tricon would have borrowed the purchase price and it was not permissible to require a notional investment or borrowing analysis against the innocent party.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Tricon in proceedings 5102 of 2004; damages in proceedings 4858 of 2001 assessed at nil by reason of that judgment; Ruthol ordered to pay Tricon's costs.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 5102 of 2004, judgment for the Defendant.' 'In proceedings 4858 of 2001, the damages payable by the First Defendant to the Plaintiff are assessed at nil by reason of the judgment in proceedings 5102 of 2004.' "Ruthol will pay Tricon's costs of the assessment of damages in proceedings 4858 of 2001."...