Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 546

The order was varied as the defendants had not complied, and it was just to include a timeframe and a provision for the Registrar-General to remove the caveat if the defendants failed to do so.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 21 May 2010
Procedural Posture: Variation Application / Post Judgment Order Variation
Outcome: Orders of 16 April 2010 varied.
Legal Topics: ['judgments and Orders Variation']

['equity'] ['judgments and Orders Variation']

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

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Post Judgment Order Variation

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether Order 3 made on 16 April 2010 should be varied to specify a time for withdrawal of caveat and provide for Registrar-General removal']

Ratio Decidendi

The order was varied as the defendants had not complied, and it was just to include a timeframe and a provision for the Registrar-General to remove the caveat if the defendants failed to do so.

Court Disposition

Orders of 16 April 2010 varied.

Orders

["Order 3 varied by adding a requirement to withdraw the caveat within seven days from 21 May 2010, failing which the Registrar-General is to remove the caveat from the title known as 'Hillcrest', Ilford, New South Wales."]