Soyfer & Anor. v. Earlmaze & Ors. [2000] NSWSC 1068

In October 1998, the plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Soyfer entered into an agreement bearing date 23rd October 1998 with the second defendant Robert Matar, whereby they were to lend Mr. Matar $500,000.00, purportedly for use in a development at 55-57 Brighton Boulevarde, Bondi Beach. Under that agreement, Mr. Matar was to be responsible for fees and interest incurred by the plaintiffs in obtaining the $500,000.00, and was to pay them $625,000.00 upon completion of the development or after fourteen months, whichever was the earlier. The plaintiffs also purportedly entered into an agreement bearing date 23rd October 1998, whereby the first defendant Earlmaze, the owner of 55-57 Brighton Boulevarde, purportedly granted them an option to purchase Unit 10 in the proposed development for $1,000.00, an option which the plaintiffs could not exercise if Mr. Matar repaid his loan. On or about 31st March 1999, the plaintiffs and Earlmaze made an agreement which purported to substitute Unit 9 for Unit 10 in the earlier agreement. On 23rd December 1999, the plaintiffs gave notice of exercise of the option. Earlmaze denied that it had any obligation to sell Unit 9 to the plaintiffs for $1,000.00.5   On 15th June 2000, the plaintiffs filed the Statement of Claim in these proceedings, claiming specific performance of an agreement by Earlmaze to sell them Unit 9 for $1,000.00, and alternatively claiming relief against Earlmaze under the Trade Practices Act, and in addition claiming $625,000.00 plus interest from Mr. Matar. Earlmaze has put on a defence denying liability, inter alia on the basis that it had not executed the option agreement of 23rd October 1998; and Earlmaze also put on a cross-claim against Robert Matar, Simon Elcham, and a company Ratam & Mahcle Holdings Pty. Limited (which I will “R & M”) associated with them, claiming damages arising out of the circumstances associated with the purported granting of the option to the plaintiffs. Mr. Matar put on defences to the Statement of Claim and to the Cross-claim, but did not put on any evidence. Mr. Elcham neither put on defences nor put on any evidence. The hearing proceeded in the absence of Mr. Matar and Mr. Elcham. OUTLINE OF FACTS …   Read more about this case:

Our case has been cited in the following lawsuits:

  1. In the matter of Matlic Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWSC 1342
  3. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Frenmast Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 459; 282 FLR 351
  4. In the matter of AP & HR Investments Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1989
  5. Correa v Whittingham [2013] NSWCA 263; 31 ACLC 13-058
  6. ANZ Banking Group Limited v Tiricovski [2012] NSWSC 1304
  7. Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Menzies [2012] NSWSC 1066
  8. MDN Mortgages Pty Ltd v Caradonna [2010] NSWSC 1298
  9. Radoman Pty Limited v Vexapu Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 8; (2008) 13 BPR 24,903
  10. Chen v Song, Chen v Song [2005] NSWSC 19; [2005] ANZ Conv R 130
  11. Soyfer v Earlmaze Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 1180

Landmark Trade Mark Win Against Budweiser

This trade mark case primarily concerns the markings on bottles…

Cases December 14, 2020

Trade Mark Dispute: Wicked Sister v Wicked

PDP used the trade mark WICKED SISTER in plain word and stylised forms…

Cases September 10, 2020

Hazan Success: Defends opposition in Trade Mark Battle

Davley Building Pty Ltd v Granny Flats…

Cases August 13, 2020