Romanous v Saleh [2008] NSWSC 656

Romanous v Saleh [2008] NSWSC 656

Although the plaintiffs showed an arguable serious question about whether the deposit should be held on trust, the balance of convenience did not favour a mandatory interlocutory injunction because the application was very late and the plaintiffs had protection under clause 2.8 by way of a charge on the land. Summary judgment for $200,000 was refused because, on the defendants' evidence, there were triable issues as to whether the payment was an authorised and irrevocable part payment of the purchase price supported by consideration. The alternative order requiring $200,000 to be paid into an account was refused because there was no evidence justifying Mareva relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning a Contract for Sale of Land; Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The notice of motion filed on 30 April 2008 was dismissed with costs, and procedural directions were made for any cross-claim and further evidence.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'summary Judgment' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'stakeholder Deposit' 'trust Over Deposit' 'part Payment Before Completion' 'mareva Relief']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'summary Judgment' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'stakeholder Deposit' 'trust Over Deposit' 'part Payment Before Completion' 'mareva 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

Equity Proceedings Concerning a Contract for Sale of Land; Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs for $200,000 plus interest.' 'Whether the defendants should be required to pay the $67,000 deposit into a separate bank account to be held as stakeholder pending determination of the proceedings.' 'Whether, in the alternative, the defendants should be required to pay the further $200,000 into the same account pending determination of the proceedings.' 'Whether case-management directions should be made for any cross-claim and evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs showed an arguable serious question about whether the deposit should be held on trust, the balance of convenience did not favour a mandatory interlocutory injunction because the application was very late and the plaintiffs had protection under clause 2.8 by way of a charge on the land. Summary judgment for $200,000 was refused because, on the defendants' evidence, there were triable issues as to whether the payment was an authorised and irrevocable part payment of the purchase price supported by consideration. The alternative order requiring $200,000 to be paid into an account was refused because there was no evidence justifying Mareva relief.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion filed on 30 April 2008 was dismissed with costs, and procedural directions were made for any cross-claim and further evidence.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 30 April 2008 be dismissed with costs.' 'The costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants may be assessed forthwith and are payable forthwith after assessment or agreement.' 'Within 14 days the defendants file and serve any cross-claim, together with any affidavits upon which the...