Multi-Span v Portland [2001] NSWSC 696

Multi-Span v Portland [2001] NSWSC 696

The May 1998 deed is effective to bind the plaintiffs in accordance with its terms; clause 2.2(c) did not operate to release the plaintiffs from liability or security obligations as the required reformulation did not occur to the satisfaction of both relevant parties. The deed is not void for uncertainty or as a clog on redemption. No actual or presumed undue influence or actionable misrepresentation was established. Zdrilic ceased to have a caveatable interest after the expiry of the option, and no agreement or estoppel in respect of a third mortgage was proved. Relief under the Contracts Review Act was not available to the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Partial judgment for the plaintiffs and partial judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
['contract Interpretation' 'uncertainty in Contract' 'mortgages and Equitable Redemption' 'undue Influence (actual and Presumed)' 'solicitor Client Relationships' 'statutory Remedies Under Contracts Review Act' 'caveats and Interests in Land' 'misrepresentation' 'estoppel']
['contracts' 'equity' 'conveyancing' 'property Law'] ['contract Interpretation' 'uncertainty in Contract' 'mortgages and Equitable Redemption' 'undue Influence (actual and Presumed)' 'solicitor Client Relationships' 'statutory Remedies Under Contracts Review Act' 'caveats and Interests in Land' 'misrepresentation' 'estoppel']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the May 1998 deed imposed a liability on the plaintiffs, particularly in relation to the further advance of $1,000,000 and security over the Wollstonecraft property' 'Whether the relevant clause of the May 1998 deed operated to release the plaintiffs or their property from liability' 'Whether the May 1998 deed was void for uncertainty or as a clog on the equity of redemption' 'Whether the May 1998 deed or transaction was vitiated by actual or presumed undue influence, or by misleading or deceptive conduct' 'Whether relief was available under the Contracts Review Act to the plaintiffs or any of them' 'Whether the sixth defendant (Zdrilic) had a caveatable interest in the property and was entitled to maintain a caveat' "Whether an agreement existed to grant a third mortgage or cause an estoppel in the sixth defendant's favour"]

Ratio Decidendi

The May 1998 deed is effective to bind the plaintiffs in accordance with its terms; clause 2.2(c) did not operate to release the plaintiffs from liability or security obligations as the required reformulation did not occur to the satisfaction of both relevant parties. The deed is not void for uncertainty or as a clog on redemption. No actual or presumed undue influence or actionable misrepresentation was established. Zdrilic ceased to have a caveatable interest after the expiry of the option, and no agreement or estoppel in respect of a third mortgage was proved. Relief under the Contracts Review Act was not available to the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for the plaintiffs and partial judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • ['Order that the fourth and fifth defendants indemnify the plaintiffs for liability and exposure to the first, second, and third defendants in respect of the further advance (May 1998 deed).' 'Declare the sixth defendant does not have the caveatable interest claimed in caveat number 586777S.' 'Order the sixth...