Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: FITZPATRICK v WATERSTREET [1997] NSWCA 108 Decision date: 30 May 1997
See Attachment (PDF)
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fitzpatrick v Waterstreet and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1997] NSWCA 108
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Fitzpatrick v Waterstreet*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor had failed to provide vacant possession by the settlement date.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor had, in fact, failed to give vacant possession as required by the contract. This involved an examination of the contractual obligations regarding vacant possession and the circumstances surrounding the vendor's departure from the property.
The Court of Appeal held that the vendor had not breached the contract by failing to give vacant possession. It reasoned that the purchaser's own actions, specifically their refusal to attend settlement on the due date, had prevented the vendor from fulfilling their obligation. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot rely on a breach of contract that they themselves have caused or contributed to. Consequently, the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the vendor had, in fact, failed to give vacant possession as required by the contract. This involved an examination of the contractual obligations regarding vacant possession and the circumstances surrounding the vendor's departure from the property.
The Court of Appeal held that the vendor had not breached the contract by failing to give vacant possession. It reasoned that the purchaser's own actions, specifically their refusal to attend settlement on the due date, had prevented the vendor from fulfilling their obligation. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot rely on a breach of contract that they themselves have caused or contributed to. Consequently, the purchaser was not entitled to terminate the contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.