Tight v Guo [2020] NSWSC 1567

Tight v Guo [2020] NSWSC 1567

The plaintiff would have succeeded at trial because the defendant's asserted de facto relationship and related Family Law Act claim did not constitute a defence to the registered proprietor's claim for possession. The case therefore fell within the rare category where, despite settlement without agreement on costs, the Court could conclude that one party was almost certain to have succeeded and order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Possession of Land Proceedings / Principal Judgment on Possession and Costs After Agreement That the Plaintiff Was Entitled to Possession
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for possession; leave granted to issue a writ of possession not to be executed before 18 December 2020; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land by Registered Proprietor' 'occupier Asserting De Facto Relationship' 'federal Circuit Court Property Proceedings' 'cross Vesting' 'writ of Possession' 'caveatable Interest' 'costs Following Settlement Without Costs Agreement']
['land Law' 'costs' 'family Law'] ['possession of Land by Registered Proprietor' 'occupier Asserting De Facto Relationship' 'federal Circuit Court Property Proceedings' 'cross Vesting' 'writ of Possession' 'caveatable Interest' 'costs Following Settlement Without Costs Agreement']

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

Possession of Land Proceedings / Principal Judgment on Possession and Costs After Agreement That the Plaintiff Was Entitled to Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an occupier's asserted de facto relationship with the registered proprietor, and related Family Law Act proceedings seeking property orders, provided a defence to a claim for possession of land." 'Whether a claim based on a de facto relationship or rights under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) amounted to a caveatable interest.' "Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs where the possession proceedings were resolved without agreement as to costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff would have succeeded at trial because the defendant's asserted de facto relationship and related Family Law Act claim did not constitute a defence to the registered proprietor's claim for possession. The case therefore fell within the rare category where, despite settlement without agreement on costs, the Court could conclude that one party was almost certain to have succeeded and order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for possession; leave granted to issue a writ of possession not to be executed before 18 December 2020; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 10/975269 being the land situated at and known as House No 2, 204 Evans Street, Rozelle NSW.' 'Leave is granted to the plaintiff to issue a writ of possession to enforce the judgment of the court, such writ not to be executed prior...