Tamanna v Zattere
Case
•
[2017] NSWSC 1388
•12 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tamanna v Zattere [2017] NSWSC 1388
[2017] NSWSC 1388
12 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Tamanna v Zattere involved a dispute over the sale of "off the plan" residential properties. The plaintiffs, Tamanna, had entered into contracts for the purchase of properties with the defendants, Zattere, a property developer. The dispute arose when Zattere sought to rescind the contracts, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to complete the purchase by the required date. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The court was required to determine whether the defendants were entitled to rescind the contracts due to the plaintiffs' failure to complete. Additionally, the court needed to assess the principles of causation in the context of rescission, specifically whether the plaintiffs could be held responsible for the failure to register the plan of subdivision, which led to the rescission. The court also had to determine the appropriate date for assessing damages and the standard of proof for loss of bargain damages in the context of termination for breach.
The court found that the defendants were not entitled to rescind the contracts as they had failed to use reasonable endeavours to register the plan of subdivision by the required date. The court emphasised the principle that a party cannot exercise a right in reliance on an event that results from its own default. Therefore, the rescissions were ineffective. Regarding the date for assessing damages, the court held that the appropriate date was the date of termination of the contracts. The court also found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to complete their obligations under the contracts, thus entitled to loss of bargain damages.
The court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of bargain damages, assessed at the date of termination of the contracts. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding. The court's decision provided clarity on the rights and obligations of parties in "off the plan" property sales and the principles of causation and damages in the context of rescission.
The court was required to determine whether the defendants were entitled to rescind the contracts due to the plaintiffs' failure to complete. Additionally, the court needed to assess the principles of causation in the context of rescission, specifically whether the plaintiffs could be held responsible for the failure to register the plan of subdivision, which led to the rescission. The court also had to determine the appropriate date for assessing damages and the standard of proof for loss of bargain damages in the context of termination for breach.
The court found that the defendants were not entitled to rescind the contracts as they had failed to use reasonable endeavours to register the plan of subdivision by the required date. The court emphasised the principle that a party cannot exercise a right in reliance on an event that results from its own default. Therefore, the rescissions were ineffective. Regarding the date for assessing damages, the court held that the appropriate date was the date of termination of the contracts. The court also found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to complete their obligations under the contracts, thus entitled to loss of bargain damages.
The court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of bargain damages, assessed at the date of termination of the contracts. The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding. The court's decision provided clarity on the rights and obligations of parties in "off the plan" property sales and the principles of causation and damages in the context of rescission.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Rescission
-
Causation
-
Loss of Bargain Damages
-
Ready, Willing and Able to Perform
-
Damages Assessment Date
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Tamanna v Zattere [2017] NSWSC 1388
Most Recent Citation
Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Reece Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 946
Cases Citing This Decision
20
Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Reece Australia Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWSC 946
Cases Cited
40
Statutory Material Cited
3
Actall Pty Ltd v Pacific Bay Development Pty Ltd
[2005] NSWSC 1067
Mordue v Kroone
[2009] NSWSC 255
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd
[1950] HCA 35