Perpetual Nominees Limited v Aus Constructions Pty Limited and Ors [2005] NSWSC 1199

Perpetual Nominees Limited v Aus Constructions Pty Limited and Ors [2005] NSWSC 1199

The lodgement of caveats against the property, without the Plaintiff’s consent, constitutes default under the clear terms of clause 7.18 of the loan agreements. The Defendants’ caveatable interest defence is not arguable, and even if it were, the doctrine of issue estoppel precludes its re-litigation given that the issue was conclusively decided in earlier proceedings. Summary judgment is granted for the Plaintiff against the Third and Fourth Defendants.

Parties
Plaintiff: Perpetual Nominees Limited; First Defendant: Aus Constructions Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Masri Apartments Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Lawrence Deboni; Fourth Defendant: Samir Masri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application; Possession List
Outcome
Summary judgment granted; judgment for Plaintiff against Third and Fourth Defendants
Legal Topics
Loans, Guarantees, Issue Estoppel, Summary Judgment, Caveatable Interest, Default on Loan Agreements
Contracts Commercial Law Civil Procedure Loans Guarantees Issue Estoppel Summary Judgment Caveatable Interest +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perpetual Nominees Limited

Plaintiff

Aus Constructions Pty Limited

First Defendant

Masri Apartments Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Lawrence Deboni

Third Defendant

Samir Masri

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application; Possession List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of caveats constitutes default under loan agreements
  2. 2 Whether caveatable interest defence is arguable
  3. 3 Whether issue estoppel precludes the caveatable interest defence

Ratio Decidendi

The lodgement of caveats against the property, without the Plaintiff’s consent, constitutes default under the clear terms of clause 7.18 of the loan agreements. The Defendants’ caveatable interest defence is not arguable, and even if it were, the doctrine of issue estoppel precludes its re-litigation given that the issue was conclusively decided in earlier proceedings. Summary judgment is granted for the Plaintiff against the Third and Fourth Defendants.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted; judgment for Plaintiff against Third and Fourth Defendants

Orders

  • Judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Third and Fourth Defendants in the sum of $4,773,587.93
  • The Third and Fourth Defendants are to pay the Plaintiff's costs of these proceedings