Taouk v Ho [2019] NSWCA 156
The deed executed by Ms Ho did not supersede the December settlement agreement because Edifice and Mr Taouk disclaimed the deed and refused execution; as a result, Ms Ho was not precluded from suing for payment under the December agreement. There was no error of law in the primary judge's reasoning and no injustice warranting leave to appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['settlement Agreements' 'deed Delivery and Disclaimer' 'appeal Requirements' 'ncat Jurisdiction' 'costs Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the deed of settlement executed by Ms Ho superseded the December compromise agreement' 'Whether delivery of the deed was unconditional or in escrow' 'Legal effect of disclaimer by Edifice and Mr Taouk' 'Whether Ms Ho was precluded from suing on the December agreement']
Ratio Decidendi
The deed executed by Ms Ho did not supersede the December settlement agreement because Edifice and Mr Taouk disclaimed the deed and refused execution; as a result, Ms Ho was not precluded from suing for payment under the December agreement. There was no error of law in the primary judge's reasoning and no injustice warranting leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with 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