Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 375

Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 375

Requisitions 17A(c) and 20 were proper requisitions or questions requiring proper answers, and the vendors did not provide proper answers before the contractual completion date. The vendors were therefore in default and the purchaser was not in default for failing to complete. Although an adequate answer to 17A(c) was later given, it was furnished only shortly before the notice to complete, before a reasonable time had elapsed. The notice to complete was invalid, the purported termination based on non-compliance with it was a repudiation by the vendors, and the purchaser validly accepted that repudiation. The purchaser's lack of funds at the original completion date and at the date...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Real Property Vendor and Purchaser Dispute Concerning Termination of a Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Hearing in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for return of the deposit; the vendors' purported termination was ineffective and amounted to a repudiation accepted by the purchaser.
Legal Topics
['requisitions on Title' 'notice to Complete' 'vendor Default' 'purchaser Default' 'repudiation' 'return of Deposit' 'section 149 Planning Certificate' 'mines Subsidence']
['real Property' 'conveyancing' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['requisitions on Title' 'notice to Complete' 'vendor Default' 'purchaser Default' 'repudiation' 'return of Deposit' 'section 149 Planning Certificate' 'mines Subsidence']

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

Real Property Vendor and Purchaser Dispute Concerning Termination of a Contract for Sale of Land / Judgment After Hearing in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant vendors' purported termination of the contract for failure by the plaintiff purchaser to comply with a notice to complete was effective." "Whether the vendors' purported termination was wrongful and amounted to a repudiation accepted by the purchaser." 'Whether requisitions 17A(c) and 20 were proper requisitions or questions requiring proper answers.' 'Whether the vendors were entitled to serve a notice to complete shortly after furnishing amended answers to some requisitions.' 'Whether the purchaser waived the requirement for proper answers or was estopped from relying on inadequate answers.' "Whether the purchaser's admitted lack of funds to complete prevented her from accepting the vendors' repudiation."]

Ratio Decidendi

Requisitions 17A(c) and 20 were proper requisitions or questions requiring proper answers, and the vendors did not provide proper answers before the contractual completion date. The vendors were therefore in default and the purchaser was not in default for failing to complete. Although an adequate answer to 17A(c) was later given, it was furnished only shortly before the notice to complete, before a reasonable time had elapsed. The notice to complete was invalid, the purported termination based on non-compliance with it was a repudiation by the vendors, and the purchaser validly accepted that repudiation. The purchaser's lack of funds at the original completion date and at the date...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for return of the deposit; the vendors' purported termination was ineffective and amounted to a repudiation accepted by the purchaser.

Orders

  • ['Declaration as sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons.' 'The defendants pay the plaintiff $76,500 plus interest to be agreed.' 'The cross-claim be dismissed.' "The defendants/cross-claimants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'Exhibits may be returned.']