The perils of enthusiasm.

Staff reporter
From:The Daily Telegraph
June 01, 2012 9:41AM

EMMY award-winning Aussie actress Toni Collette could be forced to pay an $850,000 non-performance claim over her alleged failure to settle on a five-bedroom Sydney residence.
The property dispute before the NSW Supreme Court started in October after 39-year-old Collette and her husband, musician Dave Galafassi, signed a contract to buy the double-fronted $6.35 million terrace, but then pulled out of what would have been a landmark sale for the area.

The owners - Susie and Nick Kelly, CEOs of men's clothing label Industrie - have now resold the house for a much more modest $5.5 million and are suing the couple for the difference.

Collette and Galafassi are yet to enter a defence for their alleged contractual non-performance.

PropertyObserver.com.au says the matter will go back to court next week, when the claim is expected to be updated to $850,000.

The pair - who have two children, Sage, 4, and Arlo, 1 - have had a bad run on the real estate market recently.

After struggling to sell their Bronte cottage, which they bought for $4.4 million in 2009, they finally agreed to let it go for $3.5 million.

The couple then settled for an undisclosed amount on their $1.32 million Spanish-style LA home.

Instead of buying the Sydney house in Paddington, Collette and Galafassi ended up settling not far from their Bronte house, with a reported $5.5 million purchase.

This is a fairly common topic so I thought it should be mentioned.
 
Can simply afford to just change their minds perhaps? Toni Collette's wouldn't be short of a quid after all. Probably totally clueless about property, but makes up for it in acting skills. Swings and roundabouts, see? No perils.
 
$6.35m for a terrace?? bloody hell

There's not necessarily any connection between serious overloads of cash and financial intelligence.

Been proven many, many times.

My observation is that often times there is a herd mentality amongst various high-earning industries, and one individual will follow the rest of their peers to an area that (to me) seems absurd - no infrastructure, no amenities etc.

They buy there simply because others of their chosen profession live there, and pay the top dollars to do so, when they could live in a spot not that far away - but not with the same "prestige" - have all the amenities etc, and a better house (value for money, or better for same money).
 
I think its rather wonderful that an Aussie actress who doesnt look like a Barbie doll has managed to earn enough money to buy a multi-million dollar home....

and pay the compo on the contract she reneged on.
 
Last edited:
The new television commercial she features in is very well done and clever (ie. the 'CAN/CAN'T' ad). I was very impressed with it when I saw it for the first time - or atleast I was until the point where it's revealed that it's an ad for the Commonwealth bank ;):D.
 
The new television commercial she features in is very well done and clever (ie. the 'CAN/CAN'T' ad). I was very impressed with it when I saw it for the first time - or atleast I was until the point where it's revealed that it's an ad for the Commonwealth bank ;):D.

Hopefully it paid at least $850k so she can put this little issue to rest.

Cheers

Jamie
 
Back
Top