Legal Research
Cases
Velik v Steingold

Velik v Steingold

Case [2012] NSWSC 860 31 July 2012

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Specific Performance

Repudiation & Termination

Compensatory Damages

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stephen Wayne Velik v Noreen Steingold [2012] NSWSC 860
Hearing dates: 16, 17 & 18 November 2011
Decision date: 31 July 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Vendor has validly terminated the contract. No order made for return of the deposit. Parties invited to put submissions on costs issues.

Catchwords: VENDOR AND PURCHASER - Contract for Sale of Land - conditional on subdivision - vendor serves notice said to be notice of registration of subdivision - contract requires completion required 14 days offer notice - completion does not take place - vendor issues Notice to Complete - settlement does not take place within time allowed by Notice to Complete - vendor terminates contract - whether notice of registration of subdivision complies with contract - whether Notice to Complete allows sufficient time for completion - whether vendor disabled from giving Notice to Complete by reason of vendor's breach of contract - whether contract otherwise terminable for breach by the purchasers, even if Notice to Complete invalid -whether deposit should be returned.
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 55(2A)
Law of Property Act, 1925 (UK)
Cases Cited: Bernard v Weingarth (1997) 8 BPR 15,651, Buchanan v Dunstan [2007] NSWSC 248
Clarke v Dilberovic (1982) NSW ConvR 55-083
Doyle v Howey (1990) 6 BPR 13,401
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Limited (1972) 127 CLR 421
Gogard Pty Limited v Satnaq Pty Limited (1999) 9 BPR 17,171
Havyn Pty Ltd v Webster (2005) 12 BPR 22,837
Lactos Fresh Pty Ltd v Finishing Services Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2006] FCA 748
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286
Lucantonio v Ciofuli (2003) 11 BPR 21,181
Mason v State of New South Wales (1959) 102 CLR 108
Mayer v Vitale (1981) 2 BPR 9162
Schindler v Pigault (1975) 30 P& Cr 328
Poort v Development Underwriting (Victoria) Pty Ltd [1976] VR 779
Senavale v Nolan (2000) NSW ConvR 55-948
Shaddick v Dunsford Investment Pty Ltd (1990) 5 BPR 11,322
Sindel v Georgiou (1984) 154 CLR 661
Smilie Pty Limited v Bruce (1998) 8 BPR 15,893
Wilson v Kingsgate Mining Industries Pty Limited [1973] 2 NSWLR 713
Texts Cited: K.E. Lindgren, Time in the performance of contracts: especially for the sale of land, (1982), 2nd ed, Butterworths
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: First Plaintiff- Stephen Wayne Velik
Second Plaintiff- Laura Allison Velik
Defendant- Noreen Steingold
Representation: First & Second Plaintiff- R. Scruby
Defendant- D.D. Knoll AM
First & Second Plaintiff- Stephen Velik, SV Law
Defendant- Steven Lewis, Slater & Gordon

File Number(s): 2010/96975
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

On 4 December 2009 the plaintiffs, Stephen and Laura Velik, exchanged contracts for $1.26 million to buy land in Flinders Avenue, St Ives from Mrs Noreen Steingold. The Veliks paid the vendor's agent a deposit of $126,000. Mrs Steingold claims she terminated this contract on 15 March 2010 and is entitled to the deposit plus interest. Mr and Mrs Velik contest…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Velik v Steingold

Details

AGLC: Stephen Wayne Velik v Noreen Steingold [2012] NSWSC 860
Case: [2012] NSWSC 860
Decision Date: 31 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Velik v Steingold involved a dispute between the vendor, Velik, and the purchasers, Steingold, concerning a contract for the sale of land in Australia. The contract was conditional upon the subdivision of the land and contained specific timelines for the completion of the sale. The Steingolds were required to complete the purchase within 14 days of receiving a notice from the Velik, who claimed to have registered the subdivision. When the Steingolds did not complete the purchase within the stipulated period, Velik issued a Notice to Complete, which the Steingolds also failed to meet, leading Velik to terminate the contract. The Steingolds sought to have the contract reinstated, the deposit returned, and damages for Velik's alleged breach of contract.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the notice Velik provided was valid under the terms of the contract, if the Notice to Complete allowed sufficient time for completion, whether Velik's breach of contract prevented them from terminating the agreement, if the contract could be terminated for breach by the Steingolds, and whether the deposit should be refunded. The Steingolds argued that the notice of registration was not valid and that Velik's actions effectively disabled them from terminating the contract. They also contended that Velik's breach of contract precluded them from terminating the agreement and that the deposit should be returned.

The court held that the notice of registration did not comply with the contract's requirements, and the Notice to Complete did not provide adequate time for completion. Despite these findings, the court ruled that Velik was not disabled from terminating the contract due to the Steingolds' breach. Furthermore, the court found that the contract could be terminated for the Steingolds' failure to complete the purchase as per the contract terms. Consequently, the court determined that the deposit was not entitled to be returned, as the Steingolds were the party in breach of contract.

The final orders of the court were that the contract was validly terminated by Velik, the deposit was not to be returned to the Steingolds, and the Steingolds were liable for any costs associated with the proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with contractual terms and conditions, particularly in real estate transactions where timelines and notices play a crucial role in the enforceability and completion of contracts.

Orders