Mehmet v Carter [2020] NSWSC 413

Mehmet v Carter [2020] NSWSC 413

Vendors' refusal to address plausible objection that land was affected by Aboriginal objects (with associated statutory proprietary interest in the Crown) constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling purchasers to terminate. This was so even without proof of actual objects, as there was a plausible contention sufficient to require vendors' response. Vendors' later insistence on completion under an invalid notice and interest demand would also, if necessary, amount to repudiation. Purchasers entitled to return of deposit and damages. Cross-claim for damages by vendors dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment Following Trial of Contract/equity Proceedings With Cross Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs: entitlement to return of deposit, damages, cross-claim dismissed, costs to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['termination of Contract' 'repudiation' 'defect in Title' 'sale of Land' 'misrepresentation' 'statutory Vesting of Aboriginal Objects' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act' 'heritage Conservation' 'remedies: Damages and Recovery of Deposit']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'equity' 'land Law' 'environmental Law'] ['termination of Contract' 'repudiation' 'defect in Title' 'sale of Land' 'misrepresentation' 'statutory Vesting of Aboriginal Objects' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act' 'heritage Conservation' 'remedies: Damages and Recovery of Deposit']

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 Following Trial of Contract/equity Proceedings With Cross Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether purported Aboriginal objects on/in land constituted a defect in title' 'Whether vendors repudiated contract by not addressing title defect' 'Whether purchasers validly terminated contract' 'Whether vendors entitled to forfeit deposit' 'Whether there was misleading/deceptive conduct in sale' 'Whether deposit should be returned under Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Vendors' refusal to address plausible objection that land was affected by Aboriginal objects (with associated statutory proprietary interest in the Crown) constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling purchasers to terminate. This was so even without proof of actual objects, as there was a plausible contention sufficient to require vendors' response. Vendors' later insistence on completion under an invalid notice and interest demand would also, if necessary, amount to repudiation. Purchasers entitled to return of deposit and damages. Cross-claim for damages by vendors dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs: entitlement to return of deposit, damages, cross-claim dismissed, costs to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Declare plaintiffs entitled to return of funds representing deposit paid under contract for sale of land dated 6 July 2015.' 'Judgment for plaintiffs for recovery of damages in the sum of $29,855.47.' 'Dismiss the cross claim with costs.' "Order defendants to pay plaintiffs/cross-defendants' costs of proceeding,...