Telfer v Fairfax (No 3)

The case of Telfer v Fairfax (No 3) involved a dispute over a deposit held in trust by the first defendant, who was the administrator of the estate of the vendor, following the completion of a contract for sale. The second defendant, the purchaser, had been ordered to complete the contract for sale after an order for specific performance was granted, but had not been given credit for the balance of the deposit held by the first defendant. The second defendant sought the return of the balance of the deposit from the first defendant. The court was required to determine whether the second defendant was entitled to credit for the balance of the deposit held by the first defendant and whether the first defendant was entitled to his fees and expenses as administrator and as first defendant in the proceedings.

The court held that the second defendant was entitled to credit for the balance of the deposit held by the first defendant. The court found that there was no issue of principle in ordering the first defendant to return the balance of the deposit to the second defendant. The court also held that the first defendant was entitled to his fees and expenses as administrator and as first defendant in the proceedings. The court found that the first defendant had accepted appointment on the basis of a promise by the plaintiff that any shortfall in the capacity of the estate to meet his fees and expenses would be paid in priority to any obligation of the estate to the plaintiff. The court made orders to ensure that the plaintiff was responsible for the first defendant’s fees and expenses.

The court made orders that the first defendant was to return the balance of the deposit to the second defendant and that the plaintiff was responsible for the first defendant’s fees and expenses. The court found that there was no issue of principle in making these orders. The court did not make any further orders.