Murray Moama Pty Ltd v Vie De L’eau Trading Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 841

Murray Moama Pty Ltd v Vie De L’eau Trading Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 841

The plaintiff was entitled to its costs because it was not unreasonable to commence proceedings to remove the caveats, the first and second defendants only agreed to withdraw the caveats on terms preserving possible claims to the net proceeds, no such priority claims materialised, and it was clear enough that the plaintiff would have almost certainly succeeded in obtaining removal of the caveats had the matter been contested.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Summons and Notice of Motion Seeking Withdrawal of Caveats; Remaining Dispute as to Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Consent Orders for Withdrawal of Caveats on Settlement
Outcome
First and second defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['removal of Caveats' 'mortgagee in Possession' 'powers of Sale' 'net Proceeds of Sale' 'costs Discretion']
['costs' 'real Property' 'equity'] ['removal of Caveats' 'mortgagee in Possession' 'powers of Sale' 'net Proceeds of Sale' 'costs Discretion']

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

Summons and Notice of Motion Seeking Withdrawal of Caveats; Remaining Dispute as to Costs / Costs Determination on the Papers After Consent Orders for Withdrawal of Caveats on Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff acted unreasonably in commencing proceedings for removal of caveats before settlement was ready to complete.' "Whether the first and second defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs where they agreed to withdraw caveats on settlement but did not maintain any claim to surplus proceeds in priority to the plaintiff." "Whether the plaintiff should pay the first and second defendants' costs because of alleged unnecessary costs and delays."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to its costs because it was not unreasonable to commence proceedings to remove the caveats, the first and second defendants only agreed to withdraw the caveats on terms preserving possible claims to the net proceeds, no such priority claims materialised, and it was clear enough that the plaintiff would have almost certainly succeeded in obtaining removal of the caveats had the matter been contested.

Court Disposition

First and second defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]