Le v Tran [2016] NSWSC 632

Le v Tran [2016] NSWSC 632

The plaintiff proved that the defendant entered into the option agreement and residential tenancy agreement, defaulted in payments, was served with the relevant notices of default and termination, failed to remedy the defaults, and remained in possession. The defendant did not establish that either agreement was void for uncertainty, misleading or deceptive, unable to be completed, or unconscionable. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to possession, option arrears, rental arrears and mesne profits, and the cross claim was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Proceedings for Possession of Land, Rent, Option Payments, and Cross Claim to Set Aside Agreements / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; cross claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'failure to Pay Rent' 'option to Purchase Land' 'notices of Default and Termination' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'void for Uncertainty' 'mesne Profits']
['real Property' 'residential Tenancy' 'contract' 'equity' 'consumer Law'] ['possession of Land' 'failure to Pay Rent' 'option to Purchase Land' 'notices of Default and Termination' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'void for Uncertainty' 'mesne Profits']

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

Supreme Court Proceedings for Possession of Land, Rent, Option Payments, and Cross Claim to Set Aside Agreements / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether notices of default and termination under the option agreement and residential tenancy agreement were served on the defendant.' 'Whether the defendant complied with the notices of default and termination.' 'What amounts were owing under the option agreement and residential tenancy agreement, including mesne profits.' 'Whether the option agreement should be set aside as void for uncertainty, misleading or deceptive, unable to be completed, or unconscionable.' 'Whether the residential tenancy agreement should be set aside as misleading or deceptive and unconscionable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved that the defendant entered into the option agreement and residential tenancy agreement, defaulted in payments, was served with the relevant notices of default and termination, failed to remedy the defaults, and remained in possession. The defendant did not establish that either agreement was void for uncertainty, misleading or deceptive, unable to be completed, or unconscionable. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to possession, option arrears, rental arrears and mesne profits, and the cross claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; cross claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['It is adjudged that the plaintiff have possession of the property described in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim.' 'The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of $99,070.96.' 'The cross claim is dismissed.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the cross...