Girdham v Girdham

Girdham v Girdham involved a dispute over the possession of a property between the parties. The defendant consented to vacate the property but sought an order as to the period of vacation, arguing that the 28 days from the exchange of contracts of sale would be reasonable. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Girdham, had been in possession of a property at Morayfield for approximately 22 years and had entered into an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff, Girdham. The agreement specified that the property would be vacated upon the exchange of contracts of sale. However, the defendant sought a declaration that 28 days would be a reasonable period for the plaintiff to vacate the property.

The court was required to determine whether the 28-day period was reasonable. The court considered the nature of the property, the duration of the defendant's possession, and the circumstances of the sale. The court also examined the principle of equity, which dictates that the party seeking to enforce an agreement must act fairly and reasonably. The court held that the 28-day period was reasonable, taking into account the defendant's long-term possession and the need for the plaintiff to make alternative arrangements.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of fairness and reasonableness in enforcing agreements. The court noted that the defendant had been in possession of the property for many years and that the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in the property. The court also considered the defendant's need for a reasonable period to vacate the property and make alternative arrangements. The court concluded that the 28-day period was reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the defendant would vacate the property within 28 days of the exchange of contracts of sale. The court also ordered that the defendant would pay the plaintiff's costs of the application. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the circumstances of the case. The decision provides guidance on the reasonable period for vacating property in similar cases.