Event and Time
Event Description
- The plaintiff entered into a contract dated 29 May 2018 to purchase a property from the defendants.
- The plaintiff claims there is no road access to the property and asserts that this was not disclosed by the defendants in their vendor statement under section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) (‘SLA’).
Application and Claims
- The plaintiff seeks clarification on:
- Question (a): Does the vendor statement provide details of road access? - Question (b): If not, was the Notice of Rescission served on 5 May 2021 effective to terminate the Contract?
Judicial Decisions
- The court concluded that there is road access to the property, contradicting the plaintiff's assertion. Therefore, the rescission notice was deemed ineffective to terminate the contract.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff's Claims:
- Stated there is no road access to the property based on the vendor statement. - Asserts that the defendants failed to provide necessary details about road access as required by the SLA.
- Defendants' Claims:
- Contend that a gravel track provides adequate road access to the property. - Maintain that the vendor statement was properly executed and accurately reflected the status of access.
- Evidence Presented:
- Plaintiff's affidavits from their solicitor referenced the concept of an 'occupational rail crossing' and a belief that access is not guaranteed for new property owners. - Defendants provided evidence of maintenance of the access track and its historical use as access to the property.