Cassaniti v Ruse NSW Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 499

Cassaniti v Ruse NSW Pty Limited [2017] NSWSC 499

The deed did not create an equitable interest in the land for the first plaintiff, as ASH and Raptor, the promising entities, had no interest in the land at the relevant time. The promise was merely contractual, not proprietary. Only the owner or a person with an interest in land can create an equitable interest by their promise, and no such promise was made by the sixth defendant, who possibly held the beneficial interest.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Ivana Cassaniti; Second Plaintiff: Gino Robert Cassaniti; First Defendant: Ruse NSW Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Armstrong Scalisi Holdings Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Raptor (Aust) Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Leumeah (NSW) Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Newton Road WP Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: David Salvatore Cassaniti; Seventh Defendant: Sam Peter Cassaniti
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity / Hearing of Separate Question on Construction
Outcome
Separate question answered in the negative
Legal Topics
Deed—construction, Implication of Terms, Equitable Interest in Land, Contractual Obligations, Fraud Under Real Property Act 1900 (nsw)
Equity Deed—construction Implication of Terms Equitable Interest in Land Contractual Obligations Fraud Under Real Property Act 1900 (nsw)

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivana Cassaniti

First Plaintiff

Gino Robert Cassaniti

Second Plaintiff

Ruse NSW Pty Limited

First Defendant

Armstrong Scalisi Holdings Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Raptor (Aust) Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Leumeah (NSW) Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Newton Road WP Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

David Salvatore Cassaniti

Sixth Defendant

Sam Peter Cassaniti

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Hearing of Separate Question on Construction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of release and indemnity created an equitable interest in land in favour of the first plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether contractual obligations by entities not having an interest in land can create an equitable interest
  3. 3 Whether the registered proprietor holds title subject to the first plaintiff's entitlement to a mortgage

Ratio Decidendi

The deed did not create an equitable interest in the land for the first plaintiff, as ASH and Raptor, the promising entities, had no interest in the land at the relevant time. The promise was merely contractual, not proprietary. Only the owner or a person with an interest in land can create an equitable interest by their promise, and no such promise was made by the sixth defendant, who possibly held the beneficial interest.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered in the negative

Orders

  • The separate question is answered in the negative.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs of the hearing of the separate question.