Deligiannidou v Sundarjee [2020] NSWSC 437

Deligiannidou v Sundarjee [2020] NSWSC 437

Clause 25(ii) of the Agency Agreement does not confer authority on the agent to direct payment of the deposit by EFT contrary to the contract; thus, the agent's actions in giving alternate payment instructions (whether to its own or a fraudulent account) were not authorised by the vendors, and the loss of the deposit due to fraud is not attributable to the vendors. The purchasers’ application for interim relief must fail because there is no basis to claim the contract remains on foot in the absence of payment of the deposit as required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Relief / Interlocutory Decision – Application for Interim Relief Refused
Outcome
Application for interim relief refused
Legal Topics
['deposit Under Contract for Sale of Land' 'authority of Agent' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'payment Instructions' 'interim Relief']
['contracts' 'property Law'] ['deposit Under Contract for Sale of Land' 'authority of Agent' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'payment Instructions' 'interim Relief']

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

Application for Interim Relief / Interlocutory Decision – Application for Interim Relief Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agent had authority to direct the purchasers to pay the deposit by EFT when the contract specified cheque or cash as the only methods of payment' 'Whether clause 25(ii) of the Exclusive Agency Agreement conferred relevant authority on the agent' 'Responsibility for loss of deposit paid due to fraud' 'Whether the agent’s conduct was attributable to the vendors for purposes of enforcing the contract']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 25(ii) of the Agency Agreement does not confer authority on the agent to direct payment of the deposit by EFT contrary to the contract; thus, the agent's actions in giving alternate payment instructions (whether to its own or a fraudulent account) were not authorised by the vendors, and the loss of the deposit due to fraud is not attributable to the vendors. The purchasers’ application for interim relief must fail because there is no basis to claim the contract remains on foot in the absence of payment of the deposit as required.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief refused

Orders

  • ['Application for interim relief is dismissed']