Anastasia Kalathas v 89 Ebley Street Pty Limited [2021] NSWSC 490
The Vendor was not in a position to complete the contract as at the date of the Notice to Complete because there was no car space allocated to the Purchaser's lot in the registered strata plan. The Purchaser was entitled to conclude that the Vendor was not proposing to convey a car space and was justified in terminating the contract; the deposit must be returned.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 April 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for Plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- ['rescission of Contract' 'repudiation of Contract' 'termination' 'conveyancing']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Was there a discrepancy between the subject matter of the Contract and what the Vendor was proposing to convey?' 'Was the Purchaser entitled to rescind the Contract?' 'Was the Purchaser entitled to treat the Notice to Complete as repudiation by the Vendor?' 'Is the Purchaser entitled to return of her deposit?']
Ratio Decidendi
The Vendor was not in a position to complete the contract as at the date of the Notice to Complete because there was no car space allocated to the Purchaser's lot in the registered strata plan. The Purchaser was entitled to conclude that the Vendor was not proposing to convey a car space and was justified in terminating the contract; the deposit must be returned.
Court Disposition
Judgment for Plaintiff
Orders
- ['The deposit is to be returned to the Plaintiff by the Second Defendant within seven days.' "The Vendor is to pay the Purchaser's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment