Legal Research
Cases
Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd

Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd

Case [2005] NSWSC 375 22 April 2005

Requisitions on Title

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2005) NSW ConvR 56-126

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 375

HEARING DATE(S): 30 and 31 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

22 April 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Windeyer J at 1

DECISION:
Judgment for the plaintiff for return of deposit

CATCHWORDS:
REAL PROPERTY - vendor and purchaser - requisitions on title - vendor makes inadequate reponse - notice to complete sent minutes after amended response - whether vendor in breach and whether purchaser in default

LEGISLATION CITED:
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s149
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, Reg 279
Mines Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 s16
Wills Probate and Administration Act 1898 s83

CASES CITED:
Butt Standard Contract for Sale of Land in NSW 2nd Edition [545]
Festa Holdings Pty Limited v Adderton [2004] NSWCA 288
Godfrey Constructions Pty Ltd v Kanangra Park Pty Limited (1972) 128 CLR 529
Green v Seven (1879) 13 ChD 589
In Re Solomon & Davey (1879) 10 ChD 366
McIntryre v Marshall [2004] NSWSC 412
Neeta (Epping) Pty Limited v Phillips (1974) 131 CLR 286
P W Watts The Law Relating to Requisition 5 ALJ 10 and 50
Re Ford & Hill (1879) 10 ChD 365
Stonham The Law of Vendor & Purchaser 1966 [1011]
Winchcombe Carson Trustee Company v Ball-Rand Pty Ltd [1974] 1 NSWLR 477

PARTIES:
Debra Pauline Crowe (Plaintiff)
Rindock Pty Limited (First Defendant)
Karin Schultz (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2512 of 2004

COUNSEL:
Mr D H Murr SC with him Mr I E Davidson (Plaintiff)
Mr D A Smallbone (Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Paul L Henke & Co (Plaintiff)
Straton Gates (Defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 14 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

FRIDAY 22 APRIL 2005

2512/04 DEBRA PAULINE CROWE V RINDOCK PTY LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT

Issue

1 This is a vendor and purchaser case. The question for decision is whether the defendant vendors’ purported termination of the contract for failure by the plaintiff purchaser to comply with a notice to complete was effective, or whether the purported termination was wrongful and amounted to a repudiation by the vendors which was accepted by the purchaser, bringing the contract to an end.

2 If the vendors’ termination was effective then the vendors are entitled to damages in an agreed amount which gives credit for the deposit paid; if the purchaser is correct then she is entitled to return of the deposit plus interest.

Facts

3 By contract of sale dated 19 September 2003, the defendants agreed to sell and the plaintiff, Mrs Crowe, agreed to buy property 38 Murdoch Street, Cremorne for $1,530,000. The contract provided for a deposit of $76,500 and for completion 84 days after the contract date, namely 12 December 2003.

4 Mrs Crowe was separated from her husband, but they remained on good terms. Mrs Crowe was the owner of property 63 Nelson Street, Rozelle. One reason for wanting to purchase the Cremorne property was that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 375
Case: [2005] NSWSC 375
Decision Date: 22 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Crowe v Rindock Pty Ltd, the parties were the purchaser, Crowe, and the vendor, Rindock Pty Ltd. The dispute involved the sale of a property where Crowe had issued requisitions on title, which were queries about the vendor's title to the property. Rindock provided an inadequate response, and Crowe subsequently sent a notice to complete, which was issued minutes after Rindock provided an amended response. The central issue before the court was whether Rindock was in breach of contract for its inadequate initial response, and whether Crowe was in default for not waiting a reasonable time before issuing the notice to complete.

The court considered the nature of the requisitions on title and the obligations of both parties under the contract. It examined the adequacy of Rindock's initial response and the timeliness of Crowe's notice to complete. The court found that Rindock's initial response was inadequate and did not address Crowe's concerns. However, the court also determined that Crowe's notice to complete, issued shortly after receiving an amended response from Rindock, was premature and thus in default. The court held that while Rindock was initially in breach, Crowe's failure to wait a reasonable period before issuing the notice to complete constituted a default on their part.

The court concluded that Crowe was not entitled to terminate the contract based on the vendor's initial inadequate response, as Crowe itself was also in default by not waiting a reasonable time before issuing the notice to complete. The court's reasoning focused on the interplay between the parties' contractual obligations and the principles of reasonable conduct. The court ordered that the contract remain in effect, and both parties were directed to fulfil their respective obligations under the contract.

Orders