Madan v Asmar [2010] NSWSC 1147

Madan v Asmar [2010] NSWSC 1147

Once the moneys were released by the stakeholder (real estate agent) with the plaintiff's concurrence and deposited into the defendants’ bank account, any identifiable fund in which the plaintiff had a proprietary interest ceased to exist; the conditions for an order under Pt 25 r 25.3(3) were not met.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Preservation of Property / Ex Tempore Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['preservation of Property' 'deposit Under Contract of Sale' 'proprietary Interest in Fund']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['preservation of Property' 'deposit Under Contract of Sale' 'proprietary Interest in Fund']

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

Application for Preservation of Property / Ex Tempore Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order should be made requiring the defendants to pay the deposit (or part thereof) into court under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 25 r 25.3(3)' "Whether the plaintiff retains a proprietary interest in the moneys once deposited into the defendants' bank account"]

Ratio Decidendi

Once the moneys were released by the stakeholder (real estate agent) with the plaintiff's concurrence and deposited into the defendants’ bank account, any identifiable fund in which the plaintiff had a proprietary interest ceased to exist; the conditions for an order under Pt 25 r 25.3(3) were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs."]