Griffiths v Duncan [2009] NSWSC 926

Griffiths v Duncan [2009] NSWSC 926

The retention fund is to be released to the plaintiffs because the defendants failed to facilitate determination of their claim as required under the agreement, and the implied term thus entitles plaintiffs to the funds.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Thomas Griffiths & Anor; Defendant: Adrian Stewart Duncan & Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Share Sale Agreement, Retention Fund, Vendor Warranties, Dispute Resolution
Equity Share Sale Agreement Retention Fund Vendor Warranties Dispute Resolution

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Thomas Griffiths & Anor

Plaintiff

Adrian Stewart Duncan & Ors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to balance of retention fund after failed dispute resolution procedures

Ratio Decidendi

The retention fund is to be released to the plaintiffs because the defendants failed to facilitate determination of their claim as required under the agreement, and the implied term thus entitles plaintiffs to the funds.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs

Orders

  • Second plaintiffs and third defendants to pay first plaintiffs $93,591.16 plus accrued interest from Chili's Retention Account
  • First and second defendants to pay first plaintiffs' costs of proceedings