NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Walker v Chanrich Properties Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1064 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 and 11 November 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 November 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq DECISION : Plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS : CONTRACT [135]- Rescission- Contract to buy off the plan- Special conditions- Vendors to "take all reasonable steps to procure approval for the registration of the Plan, Instruments or Community Management Statement"- What is "reasonable"- What would a reasonable developer do?- Both parties had right to rescind under special condition 30- Vendors exercised the right of rescission- Whether rescission justified- Plaintiffs seeking specific performance of contract. CONVEYANCING [2]- Contract subject to registration of plan within certain period- Condition not fulfilled- Whether vendors could rescind. LEGISLATION CITED : Sydney Water Act 1994, s 73 Hawes v Cuzeno Pty Ltd (1999) 10 BPR 18,011 Hunyor v Tilelli (1997) 8 BPR 15,629 CASES CITED : Mitchell v Pattern Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 11 BPR 20,241 Pulmor Pty Ltd v Handley (1996) 41 NSWLR 30 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 Wardy v Hardy (2002) 11 BPR 20,227 PARTIES : Andrew Peter Walker and Aurora Walker (P) Chanrich Properties Pty Ltd and Hi-Return Investments Pty Ltd (D) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1908/03 COUNSEL : J B Whittle SC and Y Holt (P) J E Richards (D) SOLICITORS : C G Taylor & Son (P) Storey & Gough (D)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
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