Ding v Su

The case of Ding v Su involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff, Ding, sought to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of a property against the defendant, Su, who had failed to complete the sale as agreed. A central issue in the case was whether interest should be payable on the contract price due to the vendor's default. Another issue was the validity of service of a document in accordance with the contract terms, despite the vendor being unable to be contacted directly.

The court was required to determine whether the contract terms were clear and unambiguous regarding the method of service and the consequences of the vendor's default. The contract specified that service on a party's solicitor would be deemed sufficient service, and Ding had served the document on Su's solicitor as per these terms. The court had to consider if this method of service was compliant with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to assess the contractual obligations of the parties and whether the vendor's default entitled the purchaser to interest on the contract price.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the method of service, by serving the document on Su's solicitor, was sufficient under the terms of the contract and also complied with UCPR rule 10.6. The court held that the contract was clear and unambiguous in its provisions for service and that Ding had fulfilled the contractual requirements. Regarding the interest payable, the court concluded that since the vendor had defaulted in completing the sale, the purchaser was entitled to interest on the contract price from the date the contract should have been completed. The court ordered specific performance of the contract and awarded interest at the contractual rate from the date of default.

The final orders of the court included the granting of specific performance of the contract for the sale of the property, along with an award of interest on the contract price from the date of the vendor's default. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the proper method of service, affirming that such provisions are enforceable and valid under both contract law and the UCPR.