ANTE MAGANIC v. GUIDO RAVAGNANI [2003] NSWSC 1063

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : ANTE MAGANIC v. GUIDO RAVAGNANI [2003] NSWSC 1063 HEARING DATE(S) : 13 & 14/11/2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 November 2003 JURISDICTION: EQUITY JUDGMENT OF : Bryson J at 1 DECISION : Rescission ineffective: order for specific performance [48]

CATCHWORDS : VENDOR and PURCHASER - sale of subdivided land - contract subject to registration of plan - land sold subject to subdivision of vendor's land into two lots and registration of deposited plan clause 28 of 2000 Standard Contract - vendor claimed to rescind when plan not registered within 6 months - whether condition precedent - "... the vendor must do everything reasonable ..." had been fulfilled: found in fact it had not - rescission ineffective. CASES CITED : Wardy v Hardy & Anor [2002] NSWCA 215 PARTIES : Ante Maganic - Plaintiff / Cross-defendant Guido Ravagnani - Defendant / Cross-claimant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2526/2002 COUNSEL : P. Taylor SC & M. Sneddon - (P) / C-d J.A. Trebeck - (D) / C-c McLaughlin & Riordan Solicitors - (P) / C-d SOLICITORS : Agostino & Co. (D) / C-c

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

BRYSON J.

FRIDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2003

2526/2002 ANTE MAGANIC v. GUIDO RAVAGNANI JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By statement of claim issued on 3 May 2002 the plaintiff sues for specific performance of a contract for sale of land made about 25 July 2001 in which the defendant was vendor and plaintiff was purchaser of a parcel of land in a then unregistered plan, a copy of which was annexed to the contract. The agreed price was $470,000 of which a 10 percent deposit was paid. The land sold was referred to as Lot 872 being part of lot 87 deposited plan 31360 of which the defendant was and is the registered proprietor. The plan shows the contemplated subdivision of the plaintiff's land into two rectangular parcels, each 1.012 hectares. The subdivision was as simple a subdivision as could well be supposed, as each of the proposed new parcels had frontage to an existing road. Proposed parcel 871 which the defendant was to retain already had a number of structures on it including his house, while parcel 872 was vacant except for a dam in the western corner. 2 The contract was on the standard printed form 2000 edition and included printed clause 28 in the standard form with the figure 6 as the number of months within which the plan was to be registered. 3