AUGHTON v WILKIE (NO 2) [2010] NSWSC 1505

AUGHTON v WILKIE (NO 2) [2010] NSWSC 1505

It was appropriate to use the slip rule to make an order for the removal of the caveat, as the further amended cross-claim had sought these orders, which were not originally addressed. The costs order was not varied, since most of the hearing was not devoted to the interest-in-land claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Application of Slip Rule; Post Judgment Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; cross-claim dismissed with costs; declarations and orders for removal of caveat and correction of register made.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'removal of Caveat' 'costs' 'declarations of Interest in Land']
['civil Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'removal of Caveat' 'costs' 'declarations of Interest in Land']

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

Procedural Ruling / Application of Slip Rule; Post Judgment Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the slip rule (Pt 36, r 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005) should be applied to permit consequential orders for the removal of a caveat' 'Whether costs orders should be varied in light of the claims regarding interest in land']

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to use the slip rule to make an order for the removal of the caveat, as the further amended cross-claim had sought these orders, which were not originally addressed. The costs order was not varied, since most of the hearing was not devoted to the interest-in-land claim.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant to pay plaintiff's costs; cross-claim dismissed with costs; declarations and orders for removal of caveat and correction of register made.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $280,000.' "The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'The Cross-Claim is dismissed with costs.' 'The Court declares that the cross-defendant has no right title or interest in the land comprising Lot 30 DP 1073293, being the land referred to in folio identifier...