Upside Property Group Limited v Tekin [2016] NSWSC 1260

Upside Property Group Limited v Tekin [2016] NSWSC 1260

Upside failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it was ready, willing and able to perform its obligations under the contract at the time of Mr Tekin’s wrongful repudiation, as there was insufficient and vague evidence as to Upside’s capacity to complete. In addition, Upside did not prove the property was worth more than the contract price on the date of breach, nor that a relevant loss was suffered. Accordingly, the claim for damages must fail and the Statement of Claim is dismissed with costs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Upside Property Group Pty Limited; Defendant: Celal Tekin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Statement of Claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Delay in Completion, Valuation of Land
Equity Real Property Conveyancing Breach of Contract Repudiation Remedies for Breach of Contract Delay in Completion Valuation of Land

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Upside Property Group Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Celal Tekin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the purchaser amounted to repudiation of the contract and whether the vendor was entitled to terminate the contract
  2. 2 Whether the vendor's conduct amounted to repudiation
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser (Upside) was ready, willing and able to perform contractual obligations at the time of repudiation

Ratio Decidendi

Upside failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it was ready, willing and able to perform its obligations under the contract at the time of Mr Tekin’s wrongful repudiation, as there was insufficient and vague evidence as to Upside’s capacity to complete. In addition, Upside did not prove the property was worth more than the contract price on the date of breach, nor that a relevant loss was suffered. Accordingly, the claim for damages must fail and the Statement of Claim is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Statement of Claim is dismissed with costs.