Rasyid v Conrad [2010] NSWSC 134

Rasyid v Conrad [2010] NSWSC 134

The plaintiffs established a valid contract for the sale of land and their continuing readiness and willingness to complete. The defendants failed to complete, appeared neither in court nor by evidence, and did not demonstrate hardship or inability to complete. Because damages were not an adequate remedy for failure to complete a land sale contract and no discretionary reason to refuse relief was shown, the Court ordered specific performance and indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Specific Performance of a Contract for the Sale of Land / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted declaration and order for specific performance; defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis; matter stood over for implementation orders.
Legal Topics
['vendor and Purchaser' 'sale of Land' 'failure to Complete' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages' 'hardship']
['contracts' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['vendor and Purchaser' 'sale of Land' 'failure to Complete' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages' 'hardship']

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

Application for Specific Performance of a Contract for the Sale of Land / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreement for the sale of 42 Beaumont Street, Rose Bay was valid and enforceable and should be specifically performed.' 'Whether the plaintiffs had established readiness and willingness to complete the contract.' 'Whether any hardship or inability to complete had been demonstrated by the defendants so as to justify refusing specific performance.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a valid contract for the sale of land and their continuing readiness and willingness to complete. The defendants failed to complete, appeared neither in court nor by evidence, and did not demonstrate hardship or inability to complete. Because damages were not an adequate remedy for failure to complete a land sale contract and no discretionary reason to refuse relief was shown, the Court ordered specific performance and indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted declaration and order for specific performance; defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis; matter stood over for implementation orders.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the agreement between the First and Second Plaintiffs, as purchasers, and the First and Second Defendants, as vendors, dated 3 June 2009 in respect of the property known as 42 Beaumont Street, Rose Bay, being all of the land and improvements in Folio identifier A/312956 is valid and enforceable...