Roks v Juratowitch

In *Roks v Juratowitch*, the County Court of Victoria considered a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser concerning the sale of a property. The purchaser, Mr Juratowitch, sought to terminate the contract of sale, alleging that the vendor, Ms Roks, had breached a contractual term requiring her to provide vacant possession of the property on the settlement date. The purchaser contended that the vendor’s failure to remove certain items from the property constituted a breach of this obligation.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the vendor’s failure to remove all personal belongings and chattels from the property amounted to a failure to provide vacant possession as required by the contract. This required the Court to interpret the meaning of "vacant possession" in the context of a residential property sale and to determine whether the items left behind were of such a nature or quantity as to prevent the purchaser from taking exclusive possession.

Judge Whelan found that the term "vacant possession" implies that the vendor must leave the property free from any obstruction to the purchaser's right to immediate and exclusive possession. While minor items of personal property might not ordinarily prevent vacant possession, the Court determined that the items left by the vendor in this instance were substantial enough to constitute an impediment. Consequently, the Court held that the vendor had breached the contract by failing to provide vacant possession, entitling the purchaser to terminate the agreement.