Gerar Sleiman v Paulette Afeich & Anor [2005] NSWSC 900
The plaintiff does not have a seriously arguable case for final relief to justify extension of the caveat, as his claims for equitable interest in the property were implicitly dismissed in the prior consent judgment, and the judgment for $100,000 was in satisfaction of all claims.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Caveat / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Summons dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['torrens System' 'caveats' 'consent Judgments' 'trusts' 'constructive/resulting Trusts']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Caveat / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether plaintiff has a seriously arguable case for an extension of the caveat over Arnott Street property' 'Construction of consent judgment—whether claim for equitable interest in property survives judgment' "Whether caveator's claim is sufficiently arguable for substantive relief"]
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff does not have a seriously arguable case for final relief to justify extension of the caveat, as his claims for equitable interest in the property were implicitly dismissed in the prior consent judgment, and the judgment for $100,000 was in satisfaction of all claims.
Court Disposition
Summons dismissed
Orders
- ['Order that the summons be dismissed, such dismissal not precluding plaintiff from further applying in proceedings 1797/04 for the issue of a writ of levy as sought in the summons.' "Order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the summons."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment