Ng v Chong

The dispute in Ng v Chong was between the vendor, Ng, and the purchasers, Chong and others. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the sale of a property where Chong and two others had entered into a contract to purchase the property from Ng. Issues arose between the execution of the contract and the intended conveyance, specifically regarding the timeliness of notices to complete and the effect of these notices on the obligations of the parties involved.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the notice to complete was issued within a reasonable time and if it was enforceable against the purchasers. The court also needed to consider the efficacy of a notice addressed to two of the three purchasers but not to the third. Additionally, the court examined whether the vendor could rely on an estoppel by representation or estoppel by convention, particularly in relation to the issue of the notice to complete. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether there was a duty of disclosure or whether silence could constitute a misrepresentation under the Trade Practices Act.

The court concluded that the notice to complete, though issued less than 14 days before the intended completion, was reasonable given the circumstances. The court found that there was no estoppel by representation or estoppel by convention as the purchasers did not object to the notice as defective. Regarding the failure to advise, the court determined that the onus was on the plaintiff to establish the causal connection between the failure to advise and the damages suffered. The court found that Ng had not misled or deceived the purchasers under the Trade Practices Act, as there was no duty of disclosure in this context.

The court ordered that the contract for sale and purchase of the property would proceed as per the terms agreed upon, with the notice to complete deemed enforceable against Chong and the other two purchasers. The court dismissed the claims of misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act and any claims of estoppel. The specific orders included the enforcement of the contract and the dismissal of all other claims brought by the plaintiff.