Monaco v Panucci [2005] NSWSC 1131

Monaco v Panucci [2005] NSWSC 1131

The November 2004 agreement imposes liability on the parties to contribute, proportionate to their interests, to the costs and expenses of sale if the proceeds are insufficient to pay them after discharge of the mortgage. The Panuccis are entitled to insist on Mr Monaco contributing three-eighths of the costs and his share of vendor exit duty. The notice to complete is not invalid due to being addressed only to Mr Monaco, as all relevant parties are bound by it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Final Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['notice to Complete' 'co Ownership' 'costs of Sale' 'vendor and Purchaser']
['conveyancing'] ['notice to Complete' 'co Ownership' 'costs of Sale' 'vendor and Purchaser']

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

Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether purchasers are entitled to insist on vendor contributing to costs of sale' 'Whether notice to complete addressed to only one vendor is valid']

Ratio Decidendi

The November 2004 agreement imposes liability on the parties to contribute, proportionate to their interests, to the costs and expenses of sale if the proceeds are insufficient to pay them after discharge of the mortgage. The Panuccis are entitled to insist on Mr Monaco contributing three-eighths of the costs and his share of vendor exit duty. The notice to complete is not invalid due to being addressed only to Mr Monaco, as all relevant parties are bound by it.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Upon the first and second defendants undertaking not to increase the amount secured on the property in excess of $630,000, order that the motion filed on 5 September 2005 be dismissed.' "Order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the motion." 'Order that the defendants have liberty to proceed to...