Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Malouf

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:      Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Limited v Malouf & Anor [2003]  NSWCA 278

FILE NUMBER(S):
41012/02

HEARING DATE(S):               29 August 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/10/2003

PARTIES:
Sterling Estates Development Pty Limited (Appellant)
Sam John Malouf (First Respondent)
Christine Malouf (Second Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:       Santow JA Tobias JA McColl JA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):          SC 3128/02

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Young CJ in Eq

COUNSEL:
M Cashion SC/S White (Appellant)
M Pesman (Respondents)

SOLICITORS:
Kemp Strang (Appellant)
Patrick Hargraves & Co (Respondents)

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT - construction - contract for the construction and sale of an apartment and car space - construction of "Special Faults" clause - D

LEGISLATION CITED:
Public Health Act 1952 (NSW)

DECISION:
1. Appeal allowed.  2. Order that the declarations and orders made by Young CJ in Eq on 24 October 2002 be set aside.  3. Declare that the Notice of Termination dated 3 June 2002 served by the appellant on the respondents in respect of the Contract for the Sale of Land dated 14 February 2000 in relation to Part FI 1/874004 known as Apartment 420 and Carspace 40, The Etage, 2-50 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Camperdown (the "Contract") between the appellant as vendor and the respondents as purchasers was and is valid.  4. Declare that the Contract was validly terminated by the appellant.  5. Order that Caveat registered No. 8684513 be withdrawn by the respondents. 6. Order that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and of this appeal but have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of the costs of the appeal if qualified.   

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT  

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA         41012/02
SC           3128/02

SANTOW JA
TOBIAS JA
McCOLL JA

Thursday, 2 October 2003

STERLING ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PTY LIMITED v
Sam John MALOUF and Christine MALOUF

FACTS

The appellant as vendor and the respondents as purchasers entered into a Contract for the Construction and Sale of an apartment and car space at Camperdown (the "Contract"). The contract provided a procedure for notification by the purchaser of "Special Faults", which were to be repaired by the vendor prior to completion. "Special Fault" was defined in the Contract to mean:

"a fault or defect in the property which:

(a) is structural; or
(b) because of its nature requires urgent attention; or
(c) may cause danger to persons in the property; or
(d) makes the property uninhabitable."

On 14 March 2002, the first respondent, Mr Malouf, sent a letter (the "Special Faults letter") to the appellant identifying a defect said to require rectification prior to settlement, namely a rise in the concrete floor in the lounge room area. On 17 April, the appellant served a Notice to Complete on the respondents requiring completion on or before 3 May 2002. The respondents did not complete relying on the fact that the "Special Fault" had not been rectified. On 3 June 2002 the appellant served a Notice…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Malouf and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2003] NSWCA 278
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sterling Estates Development Corporation Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by Young CJ in Equity. The dispute concerned the validity of a notice of termination issued by the appellant to the respondents under a contract for the sale of an apartment and car space. The respondents had lodged a caveat against the title to the property.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the construction of the "Special Faults" clause within the contract for sale. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant's actions constituted a breach of this clause, thereby invalidating its subsequent notice of termination. The court also considered the validity of the termination notice itself and the implications for the caveat registered by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the declarations and orders made by the Chief Judge. The court found that the notice of termination dated 3 June 2002, served by the appellant on the respondents in respect of the Contract for the Sale of Land dated 14 February 2000, was valid. Consequently, the court declared that the contract had been validly terminated by the appellant and ordered that the caveat registered by the respondents be withdrawn. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and the appeal, with a potential certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 for the appeal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed. 2. Order that the declarations and orders made by Young CJ in Eq on 24 October 2002 be set aside. 3. Declare that the Notice of Termination dated 3 June 2002 served by the appellant on the respondents in respect of the Contract for the Sale of Land dated 14 February 2000 in relation to Part FI 1/874004 known as Apartment 420 and Carspace 40, The Etage, 2-50 Pyrmont Bridge Road, Camperdown (the "Contract") between the appellant as vendor and the respondents as purchasers was and is valid. 4. Declare that the Contract was validly terminated by the appellant. 5. Order that Caveat registered No. 8684513 be withdrawn by the respondents. 6. Order that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and of this appeal but have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 in respect of the costs of the appeal if qualified.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.