Kalamen v Al Aubodi

The case of Kalamen v Al Aubodi involved a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser of a property. The central issue was whether the notice to complete the sale was valid and whether the purchaser was entitled to relief against forfeiture of their deposit. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues centred around the interpretation of the notice to complete, specifically whether the notice allowed for a reasonable period to complete, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief against forfeiture of the deposit.

The court found that the notice to complete was not a standard 14-day notice as authorised by the contract. Instead, it required completion at a specific time on the fourteenth day, which was not a sufficient notice. Despite this, the court held that the notice did in fact allow a reasonable period to complete the sale. Regarding the deposit, the purchaser failed to complete the sale due to delays by their mortgage broker. The vendor did not contribute to this delay. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief against forfeiture of the deposit under the Conveyancing Act 1919 s55(2A).

The court's reasoning was that, although the notice to complete was technically flawed, the purchaser had effectively been given enough time to complete the sale. As for the deposit, the court found that the purchaser's inability to complete was due to factors outside the vendor's control. Therefore, the court refused to grant relief against forfeiture of the deposit. This decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with contractual terms and the court's cautious approach to relief against forfeiture in the absence of significant contribution by the vendor to the purchaser's default.