NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 47 NSWLR 568 (1999) NSW ConvR 55-919
New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Mandalidis v Artline [1999] NSWSC 909 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : 2134/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 24 and 25 November 1998 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 September 1999
Jason Mandalidis and Marino Rodriguez (P) PARTIES : Artline Contractors Pty Ltd (D1) Maraza Holdings Pty Ltd T/as L J Hooker (Mascot) Pty Ltd (D2) JUDGMENT OF : Austin J
COUNSEL : S Epstein (P) S Reuben with M Dulhunty (D) SOLICITORS : Baron & Associates (P) David Landa Stewart & Co (D) CATCHWORDS : Conveyancing - statutory warranties in contract for sale of land - s 149 certificate fails to disclose council's policy on aircraft noise - warranty that s 149 certificate specifies true status of land regarding council policy to restrict development because of 'other risk' - scope and construction of warranty - entitlement to rescind - whether council's policy on aircraft noise a matter 'affecting' the land - meaning of requirement that purchaser would not have entered into contract if aware of existence of council's policy; statutory interpretation - purposive interpretation of remedial and reformatory legislation - relevance of ejusdum generis and noscitur a sociis rules. Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), ss 52A, 55(2A) Conveyancing (Sale of Land) Regulation 1995, Regulation 7, 19, 20 and Schedule 3 ACTS CITED : Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 149 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, Schedule 4 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 33 Brewarrana Pty Ltd v Commr. of Highways (No 2) (1973) 6 SASR 541 Jones v Assef [1975] 2 NSWLR 13 Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404 Little v Piccin (1983) 52 LGRA 258 CASES CITED : Lucas & Tait (Investments) Pty Ltd v Victoria Securities Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 268 Mattinson v Multiplo Incubators Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 368 SA Mearns v Parris Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,677 Timanu Pty Ltd v Clurstock Pty Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 338 Wight v Foran (1987) 11 NSWLR 470 DECISION : Summons dismissed; judgment for first defendant/cross-claimant on cross-claim
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate