Chan v Grimston (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 423

Chan v Grimston (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 423

The sale notes authorised the vendors' agent to attend to exchange of contracts on behalf of both vendors and purchasers. That authority included authority to date the contracts, and the evidence showed that the agent effected exchange on 14 December 2015 after obtaining the plaintiffs' consent to the changed settlement period. On that basis the deposit was payable on 30 December 2015, no attempt to pay it was made until the following day, and the defendants' termination was valid. The plaintiffs therefore had no serious question to be tried that would support a caveatable interest, so the order requiring withdrawal of the further caveat should stand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List; Real Property Torrens System Caveat Dispute / Application by Plaintiffs to Vary or Vacate an Order Requiring Withdrawal of a Further Caveat
Outcome
Application to vary order to withdraw caveat dismissed.
Legal Topics
['torrens System Caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'exchange of Contracts for Sale of Land' 'termination of Contract' 'specific Performance']
['real Property' 'equity' 'contract Law'] ['torrens System Caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'exchange of Contracts for Sale of Land' 'termination of Contract' 'specific Performance']

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

Equity Duty List; Real Property Torrens System Caveat Dispute / Application by Plaintiffs to Vary or Vacate an Order Requiring Withdrawal of a Further Caveat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs had an interest in the subject property sufficient to justify maintaining or extending a caveat.' 'Whether the contract for sale was exchanged on 14 December 2015 or 16 December 2015.' "Whether the defendants' termination of the contract was valid or premature." "Whether the vendors' agent was authorised to effect and date the exchange of contracts on behalf of both parties."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sale notes authorised the vendors' agent to attend to exchange of contracts on behalf of both vendors and purchasers. That authority included authority to date the contracts, and the evidence showed that the agent effected exchange on 14 December 2015 after obtaining the plaintiffs' consent to the changed settlement period. On that basis the deposit was payable on 30 December 2015, no attempt to pay it was made until the following day, and the defendants' termination was valid. The plaintiffs therefore had no serious question to be tried that would support a caveatable interest, so the order requiring withdrawal of the further caveat should stand.

Court Disposition

Application to vary order to withdraw caveat dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Court did not vacate Order (2) of the orders set out in paragraph [24] of the first judgment.' 'The plaintiffs must file a withdrawal of the further caveat in registrable form tomorrow.' 'The proceedings are stood over for further directions before the registrar on 20 April 2016 to enable the plaintiffs to...