Medsara Pty Limited v Sande & Ors [2005] NSWCA 40

Medsara Pty Limited v Sande & Ors [2005] NSWCA 40

The appeal was allowed in part because the trial judge erred in awarding indemnity costs based partly on a mistaken factual finding about alteration of the contract; otherwise, the trial judge's findings that Medsara knowingly took advantage of the Vendors' mistake and that rectification and specific performance should be granted were supported by the probabilities and credibility assessments, particularly of Mr Davis over Mr Raad.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unilateral Mistake' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'rectification' 'costs (indemnity)' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'rule in Jones V Dunkel']
['contract' 'equity'] ['unilateral Mistake' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'rectification' 'costs (indemnity)' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'rule in Jones V Dunkel']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Medsara Pty Limited knowingly took advantage of a contractual mistake by the Vendors regarding completion date' 'Whether rectification of contracts should be granted to reflect true intentions' 'Whether conduct of Medsara warranted indemnity costs' 'Assessment of witness credibility and application of the rule in Jones v Dunkel']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because the trial judge erred in awarding indemnity costs based partly on a mistaken factual finding about alteration of the contract; otherwise, the trial judge's findings that Medsara knowingly took advantage of the Vendors' mistake and that rectification and specific performance should be granted were supported by the probabilities and credibility assessments, particularly of Mr Davis over Mr Raad.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The appeal is upheld to the extent that the trial judge's order that Medsara pay the Vendors' indemnity costs be set aside and, in lieu thereof, there be an order that Medsara pay the Vendors' costs of the trial." 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed.' "Medsara to pay 90% of the Vendors' costs of the appeal."]