Iris Diversified Property Pty Limited v Banrun Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1231

Iris Diversified Property Pty Limited v Banrun Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1231

The amounts claimed by the purchaser were assessed; some claims for damage and missing items were allowed, while others were not substantiated. The balance of the deposit retained was directed to be split between the parties according to allowed amounts, reflecting the contractual obligations as interpreted from the evidence and contract terms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Contract / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Partial judgment for both parties (set off).
Legal Topics
['vendor and Purchaser' 'claim by Vendor for Balance Deposit' 'cross Claim by Purchaser for Damage to Premises' 'non Delivery of Fixtures or Included Items']
['contract'] ['vendor and Purchaser' 'claim by Vendor for Balance Deposit' 'cross Claim by Purchaser for Damage to Premises' 'non Delivery of Fixtures or Included Items']

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

Contract / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Entitlement to balance of deposit under contract for sale of land' 'Whether vendor removed excluded items without damage to premises' 'Whether included items were handed over in good working order' 'Whether certain inclusions were not handed over or certain fixtures were removed']

Ratio Decidendi

The amounts claimed by the purchaser were assessed; some claims for damage and missing items were allowed, while others were not substantiated. The balance of the deposit retained was directed to be split between the parties according to allowed amounts, reflecting the contractual obligations as interpreted from the evidence and contract terms.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for both parties (set off).

Orders

  • ['Order the sum of $28,647.84 being the balance of the deposit held by the second defendant under contract of sale dated 29 May 2009 between the plaintiff and the first defendant be paid by the second defendant as follows: $12,758.83 to the plaintiff; $15,899.01 to the first defendant.' 'Order the plaintiff and...