Gayed v Yuan

The case of Gayed v Yuan involved the applicants, purchasers of a property, who repudiated their contract of sale with the respondent, the vendor. The respondent accepted the repudiation and rescinded the contract. The applicants subsequently sued the respondent for the return of their deposit. The trial judge dismissed the proceeding, leading the applicants to seek leave to appeal the decision. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge erred in considering certain issues without giving the parties notice, whether the trial judge correctly determined that the applicants' breach of contract caused a loss to the respondent, whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that the vendor was not required to give the applicants contractual notice of default, whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness, and whether the conduct of the trial judge amounted to bias. Additionally, the applicants challenged the trial judge's determination that they should pay indemnity costs after rejecting the respondent's Calderbank offer.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in considering the issues without prior notice, as the matters were apparent from the pleadings and no prejudice resulted from this approach. Regarding the loss to the respondent, the court held that the trial judge correctly determined that the applicants' breach of contract caused the respondent to suffer a loss. The court also found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the vendor was not required to give the applicants contractual notice of default. Furthermore, the court ruled that the applicants were not denied procedural fairness and that the conduct of the trial judge did not amount to bias. Finally, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to require the applicants to pay indemnity costs after rejecting the respondent's Calderbank offer.

Given that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court determined that the applicants' proposed appeal did not present any significant legal issues that warranted further consideration, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.