EJS Developments Pty Ltd v Dunmore Street Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 351

EJS Developments Pty Ltd v Dunmore Street Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 351

The extension of the caveat was refused because EJS Developments Pty Ltd failed to identify any cause of action or serious question to be tried as to its entitlement to the specific lots in dispute. The evidence did not support the claim that EJS had a proprietary interest in those lots beyond the units allocated under the distribution table, nor any advances entitling it to specific lots. Delay in articulating a legal basis for relief further undermined the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Extend Caveat / Interlocutory Application; Application for Extension of Caveat
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['caveats' 'trusts' 'distribution of Trust Property' 'proprietary Interests in Land']
['land Law' 'equity'] ['caveats' 'trusts' 'distribution of Trust Property' 'proprietary Interests in 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

Notice of Motion to Extend Caveat / Interlocutory Application; Application for Extension of Caveat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether EJS Developments Pty Ltd demonstrated a serious question to be tried entitling it to the extension of the caveat over Lots 4 and 35.' 'Whether EJS Developments Pty Ltd has a proprietary interest in all the assets of the trust sufficient to maintain a caveat on specific lots beyond its allocated share.' 'Whether the conduct of Dunmore Street Pty Ltd as trustee breached any obligations justifying interlocutory extension of the caveat.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of the caveat was refused because EJS Developments Pty Ltd failed to identify any cause of action or serious question to be tried as to its entitlement to the specific lots in dispute. The evidence did not support the claim that EJS had a proprietary interest in those lots beyond the units allocated under the distribution table, nor any advances entitling it to specific lots. Delay in articulating a legal basis for relief further undermined the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 23 March 2021 and prayer 2 of the plaintiff's summons filed 23 March 2021 are dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 23 March 2021." 'The proceedings to continue by pleadings.' 'The plaintiff is to file and serve...