Hemjum Pty Ltd v Osachy

Hemjum Pty Ltd sued Osachy over a failed land sale. The dispute centred on whether Osachy represented that he would provide vendor finance and extend the completion date, causing Hemjum to not secure alternative finance. Hemjum sought specific performance of the contract, arguing that Osachy was estopped from terminating due to these representations. The court had to decide if Osachy represented he would provide vendor finance and if Hemjum relied on this to not seek alternative finance. The court also had to determine if Osachy breached an implied obligation to cooperate and if terminating the contract was unconscionable.

The court held that there was no evidence Hemjum sought finance from any lender until June 2016, despite the contract requiring completion by 18 August 2016. There was also no evidence Hemjum would have obtained finance by the completion date even if it had sought it earlier. The court found that Hemjum did not rely on any representation about vendor finance to not seek finance and that Osachy did not represent he would provide vendor finance. The court also found that terminating the contract was not unconscionable.

The court dismissed Hemjum's claims. The parties will now discuss the form of judgment or final order, including costs.