Moon v Wyniard [2006] NSWSC 451

Moon v Wyniard [2006] NSWSC 451

It is arguable that the secretary who altered the contract had ostensible authority to do so, and this question is not for determination at this stage; there is an arguable position for the plaintiffs under the Real Property Act 1900, s 74K, and the balance of convenience favours extension of the caveat with an undertaking as to damages.

Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Moon; Plaintiff: Rhonda Moon; Defendant: Jane Wyniard; Defendant: Terry McMillan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Caveat / Interlocutory Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Order extending caveat until further order; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs; matter stood over.
Legal Topics
Land Titles Under the Torrens System, Caveats Against Dealings, Application to Extend Caveat, Contract for Sale of Land, Alteration of Contract, Authorisation or Ratification
Conveyancing Property Law Land Titles Under the Torrens System Caveats Against Dealings Application to Extend Caveat Contract for Sale of Land Alteration of Contract Authorisation or Ratification

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Moon

Plaintiff

Rhonda Moon

Plaintiff

Jane Wyniard

Defendant

Terry McMillan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Extend Caveat / Interlocutory Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs (Mr and Mrs Moon) have a caveatable interest in the property after alteration of the contract for sale of land
  2. 2 Whether the secretary acting in the way she did had ostensible authority to alter the contract
  3. 3 Whether delay in lodging the caveat affects the plaintiffs' equity

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the secretary who altered the contract had ostensible authority to do so, and this question is not for determination at this stage; there is an arguable position for the plaintiffs under the Real Property Act 1900, s 74K, and the balance of convenience favours extension of the caveat with an undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Order extending caveat until further order; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs; matter stood over.

Orders

  • Order extending the caveat in terms of par 1 of the summons
  • Defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs