NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Tudor Developments Pty Ltd v Makeig [2007] NSWSC 1116
HEARING DATE(S) : 24/9/07
JUDGMENT DATE : 9 October 2007
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq
DECISION : Plaintiff cannot validly plead estoppel against defence of non-compliance on part of plaintiff with s 96A of Home Building Act.
CATCHWORDS : ESTOPPEL [35]- Estoppel in pais- Matters against which estoppel does not prevail- Statutory provisions- Contract for sale of land- Defendant rescinds after plaintiff fails to provide certificate of insurance as required by s 96A of Home Building Act- Plaintiff claims defendant knew insurance effected, pleads estoppel- Held policy of statute to protect consumers- Doctrine of estoppel cannot operate against or nullify this statutory purpose- No estoppel can lie against defendant.
LEGISLATION CITED : Home Building Act 1989, ss 92, 94, 96A, 103D
Australasian Concrete Services v Multiplex Constructions [1999] NSWSC 1140 Beesly v Hallwood Estates Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 549 Carter v James (1844) 13 M & W 137; 153 ER 57 Considine v Citicorp Australia Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 657 CASES CITED : Kok Hoong v Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd [1964] AC 993 Overmyer Industrial Brokers Pty Ltd v Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 305 Pacific Rim Developments Pty Ltd v Anketell [1999] NSWSC 304 Revell v Litwin Construction (1973) Ltd (1991) 86 DLR (4th) 169 Shah v Shah [2002] QB 35 Yaxley v Gotts [2000] Ch 162
PARTIES : Tudor Developments Pty Limited (P) Kaye Janeice Makeig (D)
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