Dunecar Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Colbron [2001] NSWSC 1181

Dunecar Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Colbron [2001] NSWSC 1181

On the evidence then before the Court, it was more likely than not that more than $80,000 was available for the defendant's interests, the defendant had lodged a valid caveat, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat. The Court therefore was not prepared to remove the caveat at that stage and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application by a Company in Liquidation to Remove a Caveat From Land Under Contract for Sale, in Proceedings Seeking Orders That a Mortgage Is Void Against the Plaintiff Under the Corporations Act 2001 / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Caveat not removed at this stage; matter stood over for mention.
Legal Topics
['removal of Caveat' 'third Mortgagee Caveat' 'winding Up Order' 'relation Back Period' 'voidable Transactions' 'balance of Convenience' 'substitute Security']
['conveyancing' 'corporations' 'insolvency' 'real Property'] ['removal of Caveat' 'third Mortgagee Caveat' 'winding Up Order' 'relation Back Period' 'voidable Transactions' 'balance of Convenience' 'substitute Security']

Source-derived case record

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

Application by a Company in Liquidation to Remove a Caveat From Land Under Contract for Sale, in Proceedings Seeking Orders That a Mortgage Is Void Against the Plaintiff Under the Corporations Act 2001 / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's caveat protecting an asserted mortgage or charge should be removed from the title of land under contract for sale." "Whether there was likely to be sufficient surplus from the sale to provide security for the defendant's claim." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat pending determination of the proceedings.' 'Whether a winding up order pronounced at about 11 am took effect from the first moment of that day.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence then before the Court, it was more likely than not that more than $80,000 was available for the defendant's interests, the defendant had lodged a valid caveat, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat. The Court therefore was not prepared to remove the caveat at that stage and stood the matter over for mention.

Court Disposition

Caveat not removed at this stage; matter stood over for mention.

Orders

  • ['The case was stood over to 9.50 am tomorrow for mention.' 'The Court was not prepared to remove the caveat at this stage.']