Coset No 15 Pty Ltd v Blagojevic [2003] NSWSC 418

Coset No 15 Pty Ltd v Blagojevic [2003] NSWSC 418

The Court found that both parties agreed to the sale and purchase of the residential unit alone for $280,000, and that the contract mistakenly included Lot 110, the car parking space. The evidence established a common mistake with the convincing proof required for rectification. Mr Pike's failure to read the contract and the fact that the plaintiff's solicitor prepared it did not bar equitable relief, and there were no discretionary grounds such as third party interests, laches or acquiescence warranting refusal. The contract was therefore to be rectified by deleting the car parking space and specifically performed as rectified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking Declaration, Rectification and Specific Performance of a Contract for Sale of Land / Final Judgment
Outcome
Contract rectified by deletion of car parking space. Order for specific performance of contract as rectified.
Legal Topics
['rectification for Common Mistake' 'specific Performance' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'mistake of Fact' 'failure to Read Contract' 'plaintiff Drafted Instrument']
['equity' 'contract' 'property Law' 'conveyancing'] ['rectification for Common Mistake' 'specific Performance' 'contract for Sale of Land' 'mistake of Fact' 'failure to Read Contract' 'plaintiff Drafted Instrument']

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

Equity Proceedings Seeking Declaration, Rectification and Specific Performance of a Contract for Sale of Land / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the contract for sale mistakenly included Lot 110, the car parking space, contrary to the parties' true agreement." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to rectification of the contract for common mistake.' 'Whether specific performance of the contract as rectified could be ordered in the same proceedings.' "Whether rectification should be refused because the plaintiff's solicitor drew the contract or because Mr Pike failed to read it before execution."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that both parties agreed to the sale and purchase of the residential unit alone for $280,000, and that the contract mistakenly included Lot 110, the car parking space. The evidence established a common mistake with the convincing proof required for rectification. Mr Pike's failure to read the contract and the fact that the plaintiff's solicitor prepared it did not bar equitable relief, and there were no discretionary grounds such as third party interests, laches or acquiescence warranting refusal. The contract was therefore to be rectified by deleting the car parking space and specifically performed as rectified.

Court Disposition

Contract rectified by deletion of car parking space. Order for specific performance of contract as rectified.

Orders

  • ['The contract for sale is to be rectified by altering the description of land by deleting references to Lot 110 and by altering the description of improvements by removing the reference to the car parking space.' 'Specific performance of the contract as rectified is ordered.' 'The parties are to bring in short...