NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: John Frederick Hillam v Leduva Pty Limited [No. 3] [2011] NSWSC 345 Hearing dates: 19 April 2011 Decision date: 27 April 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: See paragraph [26] of judgment. Catchwords: EQUITY - equitable remedies - specific performance - relief against forfeiture - claim for extension of relief against forfeiture of possession of property - relief originally claimed so as to support a decree of specific performance for purchase of the property - decree of specific performance declined - HELD - relief against forfeiture not extended. Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, s 42.2 Cases Cited: Baillieu Knight Frank (NSW) v Ted Manny Real Estate Pty Ltd (1992) 30 NSWLR 359 Degmam Pty Ltd (in liq) v Wright (No.2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354 EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Limited [1983] Ch 59 Hillam v Leduva Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1360 Hillam v Leduva Pty Limited [No. 2] [2011] NSWSC 247 Harrison v Schipp; Cameron v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Plaintiff/Respondent- John Frederick Hillam Defendant/Applicant- Leduva Pty Limited Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff/Respondent - D. Perrignon Defendant/Applicant - A.M. Gruzman Solicitors: Plaintiff/Respondent - Richard John Willian d'Apice, Markinson & d'Apice Lawyers Defendant/Applicant - Annamaria Bernadette Marano, McBride Harle & Martin solicitors File Number(s): 2010/287070
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