NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Saad v Saad Properties Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 648 Hearing dates: 23, 24, 26 and 29 April 2013 Decision date: 28 May 2013 Before: Windeyer AJ Decision: Refer to para [60] of judgment. Catchwords: CONTRACTS - general contractual principles - uncertainty of contractual terms - requirements of writing ESTOPPEL - estoppel in pais - effect of estoppel - appropriate remedy to give effect to expectation induced by estopped party - relevance of benefits already had by claimant to quantum of relief Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 Cases Cited: Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Ltd (1938) 59 CLR 641 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84; (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Peter Saad (Plaintiff) Saad Properties Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: A Fernon (Plaintiff) G E Underwood (Defendant) Solicitors: Rodriguez Lawyers (Plaintiff) de Groots Wills & Estate Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2012/299573
Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: The question for decision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to occupy certain premises at Strathfield owned by the defendant for so long as he practises as a solicitor from the premises. The claim is based both in contract and estoppel.
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