Hearse v Pallister

In the matter of Hearse v Pallister, the plaintiffs, who were vendors, initiated proceedings against the first and second defendants, the purchasers, for breach of contract. The dispute arose after the vendors issued a Notice to Complete, requiring the purchasers to complete the purchase of the property by a specified date. When the purchasers failed to complete, the vendors issued a notice of rescission through their solicitors. The vendors subsequently brought proceedings for breach of contract, and orders were made against the purchasers, including an order for damages in favour of the vendors. However, neither of the purchasers attended the hearing, resulting in orders being made against them in their absence.

The legal issues before the court involved the enforceability of the Notice to Complete and the validity of the orders made against the purchasers. The second defendant sought to set aside the judgments and orders on the grounds that the Notice to Complete was addressed to both purchasers, and she had an arguable defence that she was never a party to the contract. The first defendant later made a similar application, arguing that the Notice to Complete was of no effect because it was addressed to both purchasers when there was an arguable case that the second defendant was not a party to the contract.

The court considered the principles concerning the form and efficacy of Notices to Complete and determined that the second defendant's application to set aside the judgments and orders was successful. However, the first defendant's subsequent application was dismissed, as the court found that there was no arguable case that the Notice to Complete was of no effect. The court refused to set aside the judgments and orders against the first defendant but did set aside the order dismissing the second cross-claim by the first defendant against their former solicitors.