Mohabbat v Milo Projects Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 943

Mohabbat v Milo Projects Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 943

The plaintiffs were entitled to rescind as the strata plan was not registered within 24 months (plus maximum 6 months extension) pursuant to the contract, the defendant's delay certificate did not comply with the contract because it was not signed, not issued by an appropriate person, and claimed an extension beyond six months which was not permitted; plaintiffs had not affirmed the contract and were entitled to recovery of their deposit plus interest.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Mustafa Mohabbat; Second Plaintiff: Khristine Mohabbat; Defendant: Milo Projects Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $150,523.72 inclusive of interest to date.
Legal Topics
Termination, Rescission, Affirmation, Delay, Misrepresentation, Certificates, Interest, Penalty
Contracts Termination Rescission Affirmation Delay Misrepresentation Certificates Interest +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Mohabbat

First Plaintiff

Khristine Mohabbat

Second Plaintiff

Milo Projects Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs validly rescinded the contract for sale due to non-registration of the strata plan within the prescribed time
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs affirmed the contract so as to preclude rescission
  3. 3 Whether the vendor's delay certificate was valid under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were entitled to rescind as the strata plan was not registered within 24 months (plus maximum 6 months extension) pursuant to the contract, the defendant's delay certificate did not comply with the contract because it was not signed, not issued by an appropriate person, and claimed an extension beyond six months which was not permitted; plaintiffs had not affirmed the contract and were entitled to recovery of their deposit plus interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $150,523.72 inclusive of interest to date.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $150,523.72 inclusive of interest to date.
  • Defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs.