Pacific Blue Australia Pty Ltd v Somalis [2008] NSWSC 75

Pacific Blue Australia Pty Ltd v Somalis [2008] NSWSC 75

Because the Defendant lodged caveats that were manifestly bad on their face and disclosed no caveatable interest, probably with awareness of imminent contracts for sale, and only offered an unequivocal withdrawal assurance at the last moment, the Plaintiff was justified in commencing and pursuing the proceedings to obtain the certainty of court orders removing the caveats; the Defendant's conduct warranted an indemnity costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders; Indemnity Costs Following Caveat Removal Proceedings / Costs Question Reserved After Order Removing Caveats, Heard in the Duty Judge List
Outcome
Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'removal of Caveats' 'costs Reasonably Incurred']
['equity' 'property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity Costs' 'caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'removal of Caveats' 'costs Reasonably Incurred']

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

Consequential Orders; Indemnity Costs Following Caveat Removal Proceedings / Costs Question Reserved After Order Removing Caveats, Heard in the Duty Judge List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff was justified in commencing proceedings and obtaining court orders for removal of the caveats despite the Defendant's last-minute assurance that the caveats would be withdrawn." "Whether the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis where the caveats were manifestly bad in form and disclosed no caveatable interest."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Defendant lodged caveats that were manifestly bad on their face and disclosed no caveatable interest, probably with awareness of imminent contracts for sale, and only offered an unequivocal withdrawal assurance at the last moment, the Plaintiff was justified in commencing and pursuing the proceedings to obtain the certainty of court orders removing the caveats; the Defendant's conduct warranted an indemnity costs order.

Court Disposition

Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["The Defendant will pay the Plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis."]