National Australia Bank Limited v Sayed (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 420

National Australia Bank Limited v Sayed (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 420

The In Principle Agreement dated 23 August 2012 is a binding contract capable of specific performance. NAB did not repudiate, abandon, or lose the right to enforce the agreement, and relief is not barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, election, or unconscionable delay. The parties are ordered to specifically...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Trial Decision on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
Outcome
Application granted; orders for specific performance of the In Principle Agreement; further specific relief per judgment.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance' 'settlement Agreements' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel']
['contract Law' 'property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['specific Performance' 'settlement Agreements' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'res Judicata' 'issue Estoppel']

Source-derived case record

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

Principal Judgment / Post Trial Decision on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the In Principle Agreement dated 23 August 2012 is a binding and enforceable contract; whether specific performance of the In Principle Agreement should be ordered; whether principles of res judicata, issue estoppel, election, or unconscionable delay bar relief; whether orders for possession and monetary relief should be made under the agreement']

Ratio Decidendi

The In Principle Agreement dated 23 August 2012 is a binding contract capable of specific performance. NAB did not repudiate, abandon, or lose the right to enforce the agreement, and relief is not barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, election, or unconscionable delay. The parties are ordered to specifically perform the In Principle Agreement, with provision for the settlement amount and enforcement if unpaid.

Court Disposition

Application granted; orders for specific performance of the In Principle Agreement; further specific relief per judgment.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to specifically perform the In Principle Agreement dated 23 August 2012 in accordance with Orders 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D.' 'Subject to Order 1D, after 16 August 2015, the plaintiff is at liberty to enter judgment against the defendants on its amended statement of claim for $700,000, interest from 16...