Akrawe v Culjak

Case [2023] NSWCA 171


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Akrawe v Culjak [2023] NSWCA 171
Hearing dates: 28 March 2023
Date of orders: 27 July 2023
Decision date: 27 July 2023
Before: Bell CJ; Leeming JA; Mitchelmore JA
Decision:

(1) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

EQUITY — equitable remedies — specific performance — land — contract for the sale of real property — multiple agreements — failure to complete when time is of the essence — whether valid termination of contract — whether applicant was ready and willing to complete

APPEALS — from exercise of discretion — whether failure to exercise discretion — no discretionary error of kind referred to in House v The King — relief against forfeiture of deposit — Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 55(2A)

Legislation Cited:

Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 55(2A)

Cases Cited:

Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155

Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604; [1988] HCA 16

Culjak v Akrawe [2022] NSWSC 949

Havyn Pty Ltd v Webster [2005] NSWCA 182; (2005) 12 BPR 22,837

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28

Lucas & Tait (Investments) Pty Ltd v Victoria Securities Ltd [1973] 2 NSWLR 268

Luu v Sovereign Developments Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 40; (2006) 12 BPR 23,629

Nassif v Caminer (2009) 74 NSWLR 276; [2009] NSWCA 45

Omar v El-Wakil [2001] EWCA Civ 1090; [2002] P & CR 36

Romanos v Pentagold Investments Pty Ltd (2003) 217 CLR 367; [2003] HCA 58

Searle v Commonwealth of Australia (2019) 100 NSWLR 55; [2019] NSWCA 127

Stokes v Toyne [2023] NSWCA 59

Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315; [2003] HCA 57

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Behnam Said Akrawe (Appellant)
Margaret Marita Culjak (First Respondent)
Ante Culjak (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Y Reuben (Appellant)
M Lozina (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Agostino & Co, Solicitors (Appellant)
Fitzpatrick Solicitors Pty Ltd (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2022/222755
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 949

Date of Decision:
19 July 2022
Before:
Darke J
File Number(s):
2021/182919

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant entered into a contract with the respondents to purchase a property in Western Sydney for $1,550,000 with a 10% deposit. The settlement date for the contract was 25 January 2021 but was extended to 22 February 2021. On 22 February 2021, completion did not occur. Although the parties commenced the process of rescinding the original contract and entering into a new contract to substitute the applicant with his son as the purchaser, the new contract was never completed. On 3 March 2021, the respondents served a Notice to Complete calling for completion of the original contract to take place at 12:00pm on 18…

Continue reading Akrawe v Culjak

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Akrawe v Culjak [2023] NSWCA 171
Case
[2023] NSWCA 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute over a contract for the sale of real property. The applicant, Akrawe, sought specific performance of the contract against the respondent, Culjak. The central issue was whether the contract had been validly terminated by the respondent due to the applicant's failure to complete the purchase by the stipulated date, which was of the essence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the applicant was ready, willing, and able to complete the purchase by the contractual completion date. It also had to consider whether the respondent had validly terminated the contract, and consequently, whether the applicant was entitled to relief against forfeiture of the deposit pursuant to section 55(2A) of the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW).

The Court found that the applicant had not established that they were ready, willing, and able to complete the purchase on the date time was of the essence. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract. The Court further held that there was no error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge in refusing specific performance and relief against forfeiture, as the applicant had failed to demonstrate the necessary readiness and willingness to complete. The principles applied included those relating to the essential nature of time in contracts for the sale of land and the requirements for obtaining equitable remedies.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.