Event and Time
Event Description
- Date: 16 March 2020
- Parties Involved: JAS Property Developments Pty Ltd (JAS Developments) as vendor and Ms. Amato as purchaser.
- Nature of the Event: JAS Developments issued a Notice of Default and Rescission due to alleged failure to settle the contract by 11 March 2020. Ms. Amato was occupying the property prior to settlement by agreement.
- Actions Taken: Ms. Amato sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent eviction after a 14-day remedy period was given by JAS Developments. Subsequently, JAS Developments withdrew the Notice on 14 April 2020, stating it was of no effect.
Application and Claims
- Ms. Amato's Claims:
- Argued readiness to settle pending resolution of building defects. - Sought costs for the interlocutory injunction on an indemnity basis.
- JAS Developments' Claims:
- Argued for costs to be paid on a standard basis, limited to submissions and correspondence with the Court.
Judicial Decisions
- The court ultimately ruled that Ms. Amato was entitled to her costs for seeking the interlocutory injunction on an indemnity basis due to special circumstances exhibited by JAS Developments in the handling of the Notice.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Ms. Amato’s Position:
- Asserted readiness to settle and contended that the JAS Developments had no viable case for the Notice of Default. - Claimed the defendant acted in wilful disregard of known facts, knowing the validity of the Notice could not be defended.
- JAS Developments' Position:
- Maintained a strong stance on the Notice’s validity, arguing for a robust defense until it ultimately withdrew the Notice, implying there was no bad faith or dishonesty. - Suggest that the decision to withdraw followed a proper legal evaluation of the situation once proceedings were initiated.