Hancock v Impresario Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1400

Hancock v Impresario Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1400

The first defendant was not entitled to compel withdrawal of the caveat because, properly construed, the consent orders required the plaintiff's state of reasonable satisfaction as to the sale to exist at the time contracts were exchanged, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff then knew of the exchange or had full details enabling such satisfaction. Even if satisfaction could be assessed later, the plaintiff was entitled to consider broader matters including marketing and price, and the lack of information about marketing meant his absence of reasonable satisfaction was not shown to be unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking an Order That the Plaintiff Sign a Withdrawal of Caveat
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['caveats Against Dealings' 'withdrawal of Caveat' 'construction of Consent Orders and Settlement Terms' 'bona Fide Purchaser for Value' 'reasonable Satisfaction of Caveator' 'marketing and Sale Price of Land']
['real Property' 'torrens Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['caveats Against Dealings' 'withdrawal of Caveat' 'construction of Consent Orders and Settlement Terms' 'bona Fide Purchaser for Value' 'reasonable Satisfaction of Caveator' 'marketing and Sale Price of Land']

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

Interlocutory Application / First Defendant's Notice of Motion Seeking an Order That the Plaintiff Sign a Withdrawal of Caveat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, under the consent orders made on 11 November 2011, the plaintiff had to be reasonably satisfied about the sale before contracts were exchanged or whether satisfaction could be established after exchange.' "Whether the subject matter of the plaintiff's reasonable satisfaction was confined to whether the sale was to a bona fide purchaser for value, or extended to the sale more broadly including price and marketing." 'Whether the evidence established that any lack of satisfaction by the plaintiff as to the bona fides of the purchasers, price, or marketing was unreasonable so as to require withdrawal of the caveat.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was not entitled to compel withdrawal of the caveat because, properly construed, the consent orders required the plaintiff's state of reasonable satisfaction as to the sale to exist at the time contracts were exchanged, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff then knew of the exchange or had full details enabling such satisfaction. Even if satisfaction could be assessed later, the plaintiff was entitled to consider broader matters including marketing and price, and the lack of information about marketing meant his absence of reasonable satisfaction was not shown to be unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The first defendant's notice of motion filed on 31 October 2012 be dismissed." "The first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion."]