Arambasic v Veza [2014] NSWSC 258

Arambasic v Veza [2014] NSWSC 258

The evidence did not establish fraud by the Plaintiff as registered proprietor; the alleged de facto relationship was denied and the unexplained $1 consideration was insufficient to constitute evidence of fraud. Because the allegations were serious, the Defendants were given one last opportunity to file evidence pointing to the Plaintiff's involvement, but they were ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the day caused by their failure to file evidence and the adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Common Law Proceedings for Possession of Land / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Dated 19 December 2013 to Strike Out the Defence and Obtain Judgment for Possession; Adjourned for Additional Evidence
Outcome
Proceedings adjourned with timetable for evidence; Defendants ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the day.
Legal Topics
['indefeasibility' 'fraud in Registration' 'possession of Land' 'strike Out Defence' 'summary Judgment' 'adjournment for Evidence']
['real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['indefeasibility' 'fraud in Registration' 'possession of Land' 'strike Out Defence' 'summary Judgment' 'adjournment for Evidence']

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

Interlocutory Application in Common Law Proceedings for Possession of Land / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Dated 19 December 2013 to Strike Out the Defence and Obtain Judgment for Possession; Adjourned for Additional Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Defendants' defence should be struck out and judgment for possession entered for the Plaintiff" "Whether there was evidence capable of supporting the Defendants' proposed allegation that the Plaintiff was involved in fraud for the purposes of s 42 Real Property Act 1900" 'Whether the Defendants should be given a further opportunity to file evidence despite failing to do so earlier']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish fraud by the Plaintiff as registered proprietor; the alleged de facto relationship was denied and the unexplained $1 consideration was insufficient to constitute evidence of fraud. Because the allegations were serious, the Defendants were given one last opportunity to file evidence pointing to the Plaintiff's involvement, but they were ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the day caused by their failure to file evidence and the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Proceedings adjourned with timetable for evidence; Defendants ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the day.

Orders

  • ['Any affidavit by the Defendants is to be filed and served by 24 March.' 'Any affidavit in reply by the Plaintiff is to be filed and served by 4 April.' "The matter is stood into the Duty Judge's List on 7 April 2014 for hearing subject to the duty judge having the time to hear the matter on that day." "The...