Arida v Arida; Arida v Arida (No. 2)

The parties to this case were Arida and Arida, who were in dispute over the interpretation of an agreement relating to the sale of a property. The key issue was whether the vendor was entitled to interest on the contract price during the period between the revised completion date under the contract of 24 December 2013 and the actual completion date. The case was heard in the court, which was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the entitlement to interest and the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the contractual entitlement to interest depended on whether the vendor was 'ready, willing and able' to complete and whether the vendor was in default. This required an examination of the terms of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the delay in completion. The court also had to consider whether the general rule that costs follow the event was applicable in this case, particularly in light of the fact that the issues on the Interest Motion were analogous to a dispute concerning a trust fund. The court needed to determine whether the general rule was displaced and whether each party should bear their own costs following the settlement of the Citibank Motion.

The court found that the vendor was not entitled to interest during the period in question because they were not 'ready, willing and able' to complete and were in default. The court held that the contractual entitlement to interest was contingent upon the vendor being in a position to complete, which was not the case. The court also determined that the general rule regarding costs was not applicable in this instance because the issues on the Interest Motion were analogous to a dispute concerning a trust fund. As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs following the settlement of the Citibank Motion.

The final orders of the court were that the vendor was not entitled to interest during the period in question, and that each party bear their own costs following the settlement of the Citibank Motion. This decision highlights the importance of contractual terms and the need for vendors to be 'ready, willing and able' to complete in order to be entitled to interest. It also demonstrates the court's willingness to depart from the general rule regarding costs in appropriate circumstances.