Ipandco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd [2003] FCA 1322

Ipandco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd [2003] FCA 1322

Having weighed the applicant's significant financial stake and long lease (with advance rent and development investment) against the inconvenience and potential prejudice to the first respondent, and being satisfied that the damages undertaking offered by Mr Ip is adequate, the balance of convenience favours extending the caveat until the hearing or further order, subject to joinder of Mr Ip and undertaking as to damages.

Parties
Applicant: Ipandco (Australia) Pty Ltd; Applicant (joined for Damages Undertaking): Ip Sheung Sze; First Respondent: Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd; Second Respondent: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory (application to Extend Caveat Pending Final Hearing)
Outcome
Caveat extended until hearing or further order, subject to terms; Mr Ip joined as applicant for purpose of undertaking as to damages; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Caveats, Extension of Caveat, Interlocutory Relief
Real Property Caveats Extension of Caveat Interlocutory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ipandco (Australia) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Ip Sheung Sze

Applicant (joined for Damages Undertaking)

Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd

First Respondent

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory (application to Extend Caveat Pending Final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the caveat (no 9940473H) over certain land should be extended until the hearing of the proceedings under s 74K Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether applicant (Ipandco) or proposed co-applicant (Mr Ip) can provide an adequate undertaking as to damages
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Having weighed the applicant's significant financial stake and long lease (with advance rent and development investment) against the inconvenience and potential prejudice to the first respondent, and being satisfied that the damages undertaking offered by Mr Ip is adequate, the balance of convenience favours extending the caveat until the hearing or further order, subject to joinder of Mr Ip and undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Caveat extended until hearing or further order, subject to terms; Mr Ip joined as applicant for purpose of undertaking as to damages; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Ip Sheung Sze joined as applicant for purpose of giving undertaking as to damages.
  • Further amended application to join Mr Ip to be filed and served by 22 October 2003.