NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 73 NSWLR 302
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Wu v Statewide Developments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 120 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S) : 27 February 2009 JURISDICTION : Equity Division Duty Judge List
JUDGMENT OF : Brereton J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 27 February 2009
DECISION : Defendant ordered to answer interrogatories. Time for both parties to seek clarification of expert report extended until 14 days after time for answers to interrogatories.
CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE – expert evidence – parties' single expert – procedure for clarification of expert's report – whether appropriate for party unilaterally to discuss report with expert - PROCEDURE – interrogatories – where likely to reduce scope of dispute and facilitate accurate expert opinion – whether necessary
LEGISLATION CITED : (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, rr 31.37, 31.39, 31.41
CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings
CASES CITED : Peet v Mid-Kent Healthcare NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1703; [2002] 3 All ER 688
Da Hui Wu (first plaintiff) PARTIES : Jing Jing Li (second plaintiff) Statewide Developments Pty Ltd (defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2631/07
COUNSEL : Mr S Brennan (plaintiffs) Mr J Stoljar SC (defendant)
SOLICITORS : Gregory J Goold (plaintiffs) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (defendant)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY JUDGE LIST
BRERETON J
Friday 27 February 2009
2631/07 Da Hui Wu v Statewide Developments Pty Limited JUDGMENT (ex tempore) 1 HIS HONOUR: In these proceedings the plaintiffs Da Hui Wu and Jing Jing Li claim to have validly rescinded a contract between them as purchasers and the defendant Statewide Developments Pty Limited as vendor of apartment number 304, Building G, 10-16 Marquet Street, Rhodes, on the ground that, upon registration of the Strata Plan (the purchase having been made "off-the-plan") there was registered a restriction of use which detrimentally affected the property to a substantial extent. The defendant disputes that the restriction affected the subject property to a substantial extent, and claims to have validly terminated the contract for default by the plaintiffs and to be entitled to forfeit the deposit.
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