Trickey v Ewert [2020] NSWSC 691

Trickey v Ewert [2020] NSWSC 691

The plaintiffs established entitlement to possession because the defendants had no ongoing right to occupy the property following revocation of licence due to default under the contract; no valid defence was raised on the pleadings and no sufficient evidence was produced to support claims of misrepresentation, unjust contract, or entitlement to relief against forfeiture. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession, and other relief sought, except for damages, which were not quantified adequately to support an order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs on possession and associated relief (excluding damages, pending submissions); defendants to pay costs; further submissions invited on damages.
Legal Topics
['conveyancing' 'contract for Sale' 'vacant Possession' 'trespass' 'forfeiture of Contract' 'contracts Review Act Unjust Terms']
['land Law' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['conveyancing' 'contract for Sale' 'vacant Possession' 'trespass' 'forfeiture of Contract' 'contracts Review Act Unjust Terms']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the property (the Farm) and vacant possession from the defendants' 'Whether the contract for sale was rendered unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)' 'Whether the defendants had any defence to continued occupation' 'Whether the contract was validly terminated' 'Whether the defendants are entitled to relief against forfeiture of their entitlements under the contract']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established entitlement to possession because the defendants had no ongoing right to occupy the property following revocation of licence due to default under the contract; no valid defence was raised on the pleadings and no sufficient evidence was produced to support claims of misrepresentation, unjust contract, or entitlement to relief against forfeiture. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession, and other relief sought, except for damages, which were not quantified adequately to support an order.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs on possession and associated relief (excluding damages, pending submissions); defendants to pay costs; further submissions invited on damages.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for possession of the Farm to the plaintiffs' 'Declaration that the defendants have been trespassing since 5 March 2019' 'Order for the defendants to give plaintiffs vacant possession within time to be determined' 'Plaintiffs entitled to costs against defendants' 'Opportunity for plaintiffs to make...