ANTHONY & HAIGH

This matter concerned an application by Anthony & Haigh (the applicants) for an order for possession of a property located at 123 Main Street, Sydney, against the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. The applicants, who were the registered proprietors of the property, alleged that the respondents were in unlawful occupation of the premises. The dispute arose from a purported sale agreement between the parties, which the applicants claimed was void. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales before Newbrun J.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the agreement for the sale of the property was valid and binding, or whether it was void ab initio. This, in turn, depended on whether the applicants had provided the respondents with a disclosure statement that complied with the requirements of the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). The applicants contended that the agreement was void due to a failure to provide a compliant disclosure statement, thereby entitling them to vacant possession. The respondents argued that the agreement was valid and that they had a right to remain in possession.

Newbrun J considered the provisions of the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW), particularly those relating to disclosure requirements for contracts for residential building work. His Honour found that the disclosure statement provided by the applicants was deficient in several material respects, failing to adequately inform the respondents of their rights and obligations under the contract. Applying the principles established in relevant case law, the Court determined that this non-compliance rendered the contract void. Consequently, the applicants were entitled to an order for possession of the property.

The Court ordered that the respondents deliver up vacant possession of the property at 123 Main Street, Sydney, to the applicants within 28 days of the date of the order.