Geoghegan v Stankovich [2008] NSWDC 289

Geoghegan v Stankovich [2008] NSWDC 289

There was no sufficient basis to imply a contractual term requiring reasonable steps to obtain subdivision, given the uncertainty and lack of evidence; thus, Mr and Mrs Stankovich did not breach the deed, and Mr Geoghegan was entitled to withdraw from the agreement under clause 8 and claim repayment of mortgage sums he paid plus 20%.

Parties
Plaintiff: Geoghegan; Defendant: Stankovich
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff in part, directions given for final orders
Legal Topics
General Contractual Principles, Discharge of Contract, Breach of Contract, Implied Terms, Restitution, Unjust Enrichment

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoghegan

Plaintiff

Stankovich

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

  1. 1 What was the true scheme of the deed?
  2. 2 Was the agreement subject to an implied contractual term that Mr and Mrs Stankovich take reasonable steps to secure a subdivision?
  3. 3 Did Mr Geoghegan 'withdraw' from the agreement pursuant to clause 8?

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient basis to imply a contractual term requiring reasonable steps to obtain subdivision, given the uncertainty and lack of evidence; thus, Mr and Mrs Stankovich did not breach the deed, and Mr Geoghegan was entitled to withdraw from the agreement under clause 8 and claim repayment of mortgage sums he paid plus 20%.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff in part, directions given for final orders

Orders

  • Mrs Stankovich submits to judgment save as to costs.
  • Direction that parties prepare short minutes consistent with these reasons.