Kitanovski v Ibrahim (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1371

Kitanovski v Ibrahim (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1371

The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the specific performance claim, as the vendor was required to provide clear title. The plaintiff should pay the first and third defendants' costs in relation to the caveat removal claims, as her late offer was decisive to her limited success, and the responsibility for initiating those proceedings could not fairly be attributed to the vendor.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Kitanovski; First Defendant: Fadi Ibrahim; Second Defendant: Jamelie Josephine Joan Lahood; Third Defendant: Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Costs orders made as set out in judgment.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contract for Sale of Land, Caveats, Real Property Act 1900 (nsw) S 74 MA, Costs Orders
Costs Specific Performance Contract for Sale of Land Caveats Real Property Act 1900 (nsw) S 74 MA Costs Orders

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

Parties

Mary Kitanovski

Plaintiff

Fadi Ibrahim

First Defendant

Jamelie Josephine Joan Lahood

Second Defendant

Commissioner of Taxation

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings relating to the claim for specific performance and claims under s 74MA of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) for the removal of caveats

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the specific performance claim, as the vendor was required to provide clear title. The plaintiff should pay the first and third defendants' costs in relation to the caveat removal claims, as her late offer was decisive to her limited success, and the responsibility for initiating those proceedings could not fairly be attributed to the vendor.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made as set out in judgment.

Orders

  • Second defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the specific performance claim.
  • Plaintiff to pay the first and third defendants' costs of the claims under section 74MA of the Real Property Act.