Luxury Homes P/L v Danieli & Anor [2005] NSWSC 379
The plaintiff does not have a caveatable interest in the land as its interest, if any, is in the proceeds of sale, not in the land. There is not a serious question to be tried that the parties varied or revived the lapsed agreement. Interlocutory relief is refused both on the merits and the balance of convenience.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Caveat and Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Interlocutory Relief
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application refused
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Caveat' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'caveatable Interest' 'contract Termination' 'balance of Convenience']
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 and Interlocutory Injunction / Application for Interlocutory Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff has a caveatable interest in the land' 'Whether there is a serious question to be tried that the parties made a new agreement or varied the old agreement after its lapse' 'Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff does not have a caveatable interest in the land as its interest, if any, is in the proceeds of sale, not in the land. There is not a serious question to be tried that the parties varied or revived the lapsed agreement. Interlocutory relief is refused both on the merits and the balance of convenience.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application refused
Orders
- ["Plaintiff's application refused" "Costs of the application for interlocutory relief be the defendants' costs in the proceedings"]
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