Ramm Investments Pty Ltd v Nguyen

The case of Ramm Investments Pty Ltd v Nguyen involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a property investment company, and the defendant, an individual, regarding a heads of agreement for the sale of property. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the defendants were entitled to relief from specific performance and whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs. The legal issues before the court included whether the time of the essence condition had to be established before suing for specific performance, whether the defendants' conduct warranted costs, and the meaning of the phrase "reasonable endeavours" in the context of the agreement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had performed their obligations by the first return date, and the defendants' conduct was unreasonable, as they failed to respond to the plaintiffs' solicitors' demands. The court ruled that it was not necessary to make time of the essence before suing for specific performance since the defendants were already on notice. The obligation to use "reasonable endeavours" required the defendants to respond appropriately to the plaintiffs' solicitors' demands. The court determined that the defendants' unreasonable conduct justified awarding costs to the plaintiffs due to the significant disparity between the parties' conduct.

In conclusion, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to relief from specific performance, and the plaintiffs were entitled to costs due to the unreasonable conduct of the defendants. The court ordered that the defendants were required to complete the sale of the property in accordance with the terms of the heads of agreement, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs due to the defendants' unreasonable conduct.