NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Boyarsky v Taylor [2008] NSWSC 1415
HEARING DATE(S) : 19 December 2008 JURISDICTION : Equity Division Expedition List
JUDGMENT OF : Brereton J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 22 December 2008
DECISION : Term of contract requiring payment of remainder of deposit on completion date declared void. Specific performance decreed, with liberty to apply for further direction or rescission.
CATCHWORDS : EQUITY – equitable remedies – specific performance – defences – impossibility – where purchaser does not have funds available to complete purchase – discretionary considerations – where purchaser owns other assets, including an interest in a former matrimonial home to be sold pursuant to court order and it is expected that the proceeds will be sufficient to complete contract – where purchaser is otherwise unlikely to obtain finance – hardship – whether difficulty in finding the purchase money amounts to hardship or impossibility - CONTRACTS – penalties – whether provision requiring payment of second instalment of deposit upon completion date is void as a penalty - COSTS – costs follow the event
LEGISLATION CITED : (NSW) Conveyancing Act 1919, s 52A(4)
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170 Bartercard Ltd v Myallhurst Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 44 Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962] AC 600 Cooden Engineering Co Ltd v Stanford [1953] 1 QB 86 Dowsett v Reid (1912) 15 CLR 695 Ferguson v Wilson (1866) LR 2 Ch 77 Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674 Iambic Pty Ltd v Northwind Holdings Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 44 Iannello v Sharpe [2007] NSWCA 61; (2007) 69 NSWLR 452 CASES CITED : Lamare v Dixon LR 6 HL 414 Luu v Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 40 Norton v Angus (1926) 38 CLR 523 O'Dea v All States Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd (1983) 152 CLR 359 Pasedina (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Khouri (1977) 1 BPR 9460 Seawell v Webster (1859) 29 LJ Ch 71 Tamplin v James 15 ChD 215 Turner v Bladin (1951) 82 CLR 463 Wedgwood v Adams (1843) 6 Beav 600 Wilson v Northampton and Banbury Junction Railway Company (1874) LR 9 ChApp 279
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