Wood v Crow [2005] NSWSC 983

Wood v Crow [2005] NSWSC 983

The Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence demonstrating a serious question to be tried that there was an oral agreement partly performed by payment of above-market rent; the available evidence, including her statements to the official receiver that rent was paid on market value and the relationship was landlord and tenant, suggested no such agreement. In any event, if the alleged interest existed at the time of bankruptcy, it vested in the official receiver and was no longer in the Plaintiff. The evidence therefore did not justify extension of the caveat or an injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceeding Seeking Extension of Caveat or Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Sale of Land / Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application for extension of caveat or interlocutory injunction refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['caveat' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'oral Agreement for Sale of Land' 'part Performance' 'vesting of Property on Bankruptcy']
['equity' 'property Law' 'bankruptcy'] ['caveat' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'oral Agreement for Sale of Land' 'part Performance' 'vesting of Property on Bankruptcy']

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

Equity Division Proceeding Seeking Extension of Caveat or Interlocutory Injunction Restraining Sale of Land / Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the alleged oral agreement was enforceable under s.54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) despite not being in writing.' 'Whether the terms of the alleged oral agreement were too vague and uncertain, particularly as to time for performance, to be enforceable.' 'Whether any equitable estate or interest in the land created by the alleged agreement was divested from the Plaintiff by operation of s.58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) when she became bankrupt.' 'Whether the evidence justified extension of the caveat or grant of an injunction restraining sale of the property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence demonstrating a serious question to be tried that there was an oral agreement partly performed by payment of above-market rent; the available evidence, including her statements to the official receiver that rent was paid on market value and the relationship was landlord and tenant, suggested no such agreement. In any event, if the alleged interest existed at the time of bankruptcy, it vested in the official receiver and was no longer in the Plaintiff. The evidence therefore did not justify extension of the caveat or an injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of caveat or interlocutory injunction refused; Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed.' "The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs of the motion." "The Summons is stood over for further directions in the Registrar's list on 21 October 2005."]