Pace v Calabro Real Estate Pty Ltd

In the case of Pace v Calabro Real Estate Pty Ltd, the respondent, Pace, sought to recover possession of land following the respondent's failure to complete a contract for sale. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Pace argued that the respondent's failure to complete the contract constituted a breach of the agreement, justifying the termination of the contract and the recovery of the property. Calabro Real Estate Pty Ltd sought to stay the proceedings on the basis that they had not been given an opportunity to remedy the default under the contract.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent was entitled to a stay of the proceedings to allow them to remedy the default under the contract and whether procedural fairness was observed in the proceedings leading to the application for possession. The court had to balance the rights of the parties under the contract with the need to ensure that procedural fairness was observed in the litigation process.

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to a stay of the proceedings as the default under the contract was not capable of being remedied. The court held that the respondent's failure to complete the contract constituted a fundamental breach, which entitled Pace to terminate the contract and recover possession of the property. The court also found that procedural fairness was observed in the proceedings leading to the application for possession. The court held that the respondent had been given sufficient notice of the consequences of their default and had been given an opportunity to remedy the default, but had failed to do so. The court dismissed the stay application and granted Pace's application for possession of the property.

The court ordered that the respondent vacate the property within 14 days and pay costs of the proceedings. The court also ordered that the contract for sale be terminated and that any deposit paid by Pace be returned to the respondent. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to any compensation for their failure to complete the contract.