Carrapetta v Rado

Case [2012] NSWCA 202

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Carrapetta v Rado [2012] NSWCA 202
Hearing dates:20 June 2012
Decision date: 03 July 2012
Before: Beazley JA at [1]; Barrett JA at [2]; Hoeben JA at [75]
Decision:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. That the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: CONVEYANCING - completion of contract - time for completion - time of the essence - by notice given - when notice to complete may be given - notice given by vendor - purchasers in default through failure to complete on specified completion date - contract requires payment of interest on balance of purchase moneys - uncertainty as to applicable rate of interest - where vendor before giving notice to complete reserves rights concerning calculation of interest and states that she relies on the contract - vendor later submits a settlement statement containing interest amount arguably inconsistent with the contract - whether that subsequent action affects the validity of the notice to complete - observations on the status and purpose of a settlement statement submitted by one party to the other.
Cases Cited: Blacktown City Council v Fitzgerald (1990) 6 BPR 13409
Carne v Debono [1988] 1 WLR 1107
Kraguljac v A & B Property Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] SASC 1
Louinder v Leis [1982] HCA 28; (1982) 149 CLR 509
Malouf v Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 920
McNally v Waitzer [1981] 1 NSWLR 294
Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips [1974] HCA 18; (1974) 131 CLR 286
Oakglade Investments Ltd v Dhand [2012] EWCA Civ 286
Paclyn Pty Ltd v GP Harris Real Estate Pty Ltd (1987) 4 BPR 9267
Schindler v Pigault (1975) 30 P & CR 328
Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Malouf [2003] NSWCA 278; (2003) 58 NSWLR 685
Texts Cited: R M Stonham, "The Law of Vendor and Purchaser" (1964)
P J Butt, "The Standard Contract for Sale of Land in New South Wales" (second edition, 1998)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Frank Charles Carrapetta - First Appellant
Lucy Maree Carrapetta - Second Appellant
Denise Amber Carrapetta - Third Appellant
Margaret Ann Rado - Respondent
Representation: Mr R A Parsons - Appellants
Mr M W Hadley - Respondent
V L Macri Lawyers - Appellants
Schweizer Kobras - Respondent
File Number(s):2012/00095244
 Decision under appeal 
Before:
Nicholas J
File Number(s):
2012/00030874

Judgment

  1. BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Barrett JA.

  1. BARRETT JA: This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Equity Division (Nicholas J) who made a declaration as follows…

Continue reading Carrapetta v Rado

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Carrapetta v Rado [2012] NSWCA 202
Case
[2012] NSWCA 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Carrapetta v Rado*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute arising from the completion of a contract for the sale of land. The purchasers, the appellants, had failed to complete the purchase on the specified date, and the vendor, the respondent, subsequently issued a notice to complete. The purchasers contended that the notice was invalid, primarily due to uncertainty regarding the applicable interest rate on the outstanding purchase moneys, which was a contractual requirement in the event of delayed completion.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the vendor's notice to complete was validly given, notwithstanding the purchasers' default and the alleged uncertainty surrounding the calculation of interest. Specifically, the court had to determine if the vendor's actions, including reserving her rights concerning the interest calculation and later submitting a settlement statement with an arguably inconsistent interest amount, vitiated the notice to complete. The court also considered the status and purpose of a settlement statement provided by one party to the other in the context of contractual completion.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the vendor's reservation of rights regarding the interest calculation, coupled with her reliance on the contract, did not render the notice to complete invalid. The court held that the vendor was entitled to issue a notice to complete when the purchasers were in default. Furthermore, the court observed that a settlement statement, while a useful tool for facilitating settlement, does not typically alter the contractual rights or obligations of the parties. The submission of a settlement statement containing an interest amount that might be disputed did not, in this instance, invalidate the vendor's right to demand completion under the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. That the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.