Siev v Magid [2003] NSWSC 222

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Siev v Magid [2003] NSWSC 222 HEARING DATE(S) : 10, 11, 12, 13 December 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 April 2003

JURISDICTION: Equity Divison Commercial List JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1 DECISION : Paragraph 88

CATCHWORDS : Contracts. Agreement for sale of shares. Purchase price payable by two instalments with the title to pass on payment of first instalment. Whether there was a breach of this and other implied terms. Breach found and vendor denied recovery of remaining instalment. PARTIES : Dav Siev v Robert Magid FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50135/2001 COUNSEL : Mr JE Robson for plaintiff Mr D Hammerschlag SC and Ms EM Frizell for defendant SOLICITORS : Hunt & Hunt for plaintiff Blake Dawson Waldron for defendant

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION COMMERCIAL LIST

Master Macready

Monday 14 April 2003

50135/01 Dan Siev v Robert Magid JUDGMENT 1 Master: This is the hearing of a claim in which the plaintiff seeks the sum of US $750,000 and interest from the defendant pursuant to an agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant on 23 March 2000. Under the agreement, the plaintiff sold the defendant his shareholding in two companies for a price of US $1,500,000. The purchase price was to be paid in two instalments. The first instalment of US$750,000 was to be paid within 21 days of the agreement and the second instalment of US$750,000 was to be paid within 15 months. There were terms of the share sale agreement that after payment of the first instalment the shares would be transferred. The defendant has filed a cross-claim which raised a series of express and implied terms and alleges a breach of the terms. It sought a return of US$750,000 that was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. 2 This matter came before me when I was an Acting Judge of the court and I have continued to deal with the matter pursuant to s 37 (3A) of the Supreme Court Act. 3 The defendant's written submissions helpfully set out the background facts which I will, with some modifications, incorporate into this judgment. The background facts 4 The defendant is an Australian businessman. The plaintiff is an Israeli businessman. Mr Aharon Ben-Shahar is an Israeli lawyer.