Toma v Taylor Square TT Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 304

Toma v Taylor Square TT Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 304

Clause 60.2 does not in its terms impose an obligation on the guarantor as principal to step in and perform the purchasers' obligations; it guarantees prompt performance by the purchasers and provides a mechanism for recovering money, but does not justify an order for specific performance against the guarantor. Remedies against the guarantor are limited to damages for breach of the guarantee, not equitable relief compelling principal performance.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Toma; First Respondent: Taylor Square TT Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Taylor Square Fund Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Guarantee and Indemnity, Specific Performance, Construction of Commercial Contracts, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Equity Guarantee and Indemnity Specific Performance Construction of Commercial Contracts Remedies for Breach of Contract

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Toma

Appellant

Taylor Square TT Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Taylor Square Fund Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee in clause 60.2 imposes on the guarantor an obligation to perform the purchasers' principal obligations, including completion by paying the purchase price, in the event of default by the purchaser companies
  2. 2 Whether the remedy of specific performance is available against the guarantor under such a clause, or whether the vendor's remedy is confined to damages for breach of guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 60.2 does not in its terms impose an obligation on the guarantor as principal to step in and perform the purchasers' obligations; it guarantees prompt performance by the purchasers and provides a mechanism for recovering money, but does not justify an order for specific performance against the guarantor. Remedies against the guarantor are limited to damages for breach of the guarantee, not equitable relief compelling principal performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Set aside the orders made by Rees J on 9 August 2024 and in lieu thereof order that the claim for specific performance as against the fifth defendant be dismissed with costs and dispense with compliance as to the rules of service.