Tanwar v Cauchi [2001] NSWSC 674

Tanwar v Cauchi [2001] NSWSC 674

Relief against forfeiture was refused because the failure to complete settlement was not caused by accident or circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control but by foreseeable risk; the explicit contractual provisions made time of the essence and forfeiture automatic on breach, and it was not unconscionable to exercise those rights. The application for return of the deposit was refused as no evidence showed it was unjust or inequitable for the vendors to retain the deposit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Vendor and Purchaser Dispute / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Amended summons dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['vendor and Purchaser' 'contracts for Sale of Land' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'time of the Essence' 'return of Deposit']
['conveyancing' 'equity'] ['vendor and Purchaser' 'contracts for Sale of Land' 'relief Against Forfeiture' 'time of the Essence' 'return of Deposit']

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 Vendor and Purchaser Dispute / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether relief against forfeiture should be granted following failure to complete contract for sale of land due to unavailable funds' 'Whether return of deposit should be ordered under s55(2A) of the Conveyancing Act 1919' 'Whether failure to complete amounted to accident or made contract termination unconscionable']

Ratio Decidendi

Relief against forfeiture was refused because the failure to complete settlement was not caused by accident or circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control but by foreseeable risk; the explicit contractual provisions made time of the essence and forfeiture automatic on breach, and it was not unconscionable to exercise those rights. The application for return of the deposit was refused as no evidence showed it was unjust or inequitable for the vendors to retain the deposit.

Court Disposition

Amended summons dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's amended summons dismissed" "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs"]