Coset No 15 Pty Ltd v Blagojevic

The dispute between Coset No 15 Pty Ltd and Blagojevic was brought before the court. The plaintiff sought to rectify a contract for the sale of a residential unit, alleging that a car parking space was included by mistake. The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the contract, as rectified, and sought damages for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to read the contract and that this should deny them relief. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to rectify the contract, whether specific performance could be ordered in the same proceedings, and whether the plaintiff's failure to read the contract should deny them relief.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding rectification for common mistake and the availability of specific performance in such cases. It examined the evidence presented to determine whether a common mistake had indeed occurred and whether the mistake was material enough to warrant rectification. The court also assessed whether the plaintiff's failure to read the contract should preclude them from obtaining relief. The court needed to balance the equities between the parties and consider the fairness of granting the relief sought.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the court found that a common mistake had indeed occurred, and the contract should be rectified to exclude the car parking space. The court ruled that specific performance could be ordered in the same proceedings, as it was a necessary part of the rectification process. However, the court determined that the plaintiff's failure to read the contract did not preclude them from obtaining relief, as the mistake was not due to their negligence or lack of care. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought, including rectification of the contract and specific performance.

The court ordered that the contract for the sale of the residential unit be rectified to exclude the car parking space. It also ordered specific performance of the rectified contract, directing the defendant to complete the sale as per the corrected terms. The court further directed the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for any damages resulting from the breach of the original contract. This comprehensive relief ensured that the parties were returned to their intended position before the mistake occurred, while also addressing the breach of contract.