Windlock Pty Ltd v V & M Davidovic Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1320

Windlock Pty Ltd v V & M Davidovic Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1320

The stay was refused because the Applicant had known of the possession proceedings since January 2012, took over and operated the business despite that knowledge, knew of consent orders permitting execution of a writ, failed to seek joinder or formally assert any legal or equitable right to occupy the land, delayed looking for alternative premises and delayed bringing the stay application until the last possible time. The Applicant did not demonstrate any legal or equitable right to remain, and the indulgence sought was not justified by its conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking Possession of Land and Application for Stay of Execution of Writ of Possession / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application for stay of execution of writ of possession refused; Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed with costs; further application for at least a seven day period refused.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'stay of Writ of Possession' 'occupation of Land' 'delay in Seeking Relief' 'equitable Estoppel']
['real Property' 'civil Procedure'] ['possession of Land' 'stay of Writ of Possession' 'occupation of Land' 'delay in Seeking Relief' 'equitable Estoppel']

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

Proceedings Seeking Possession of Land and Application for Stay of Execution of Writ of Possession / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether execution of the writ of possession should be stayed to allow the Applicant time to relocate its business.' 'Whether alleged detriment to employees and contractual third parties justified a stay of execution.' 'Whether the Applicant demonstrated any legal or equitable right to remain in occupation of the land.' "Whether the Applicant's delay in seeking relief and knowledge of the proceedings weighed against granting a stay."]

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the Applicant had known of the possession proceedings since January 2012, took over and operated the business despite that knowledge, knew of consent orders permitting execution of a writ, failed to seek joinder or formally assert any legal or equitable right to occupy the land, delayed looking for alternative premises and delayed bringing the stay application until the last possible time. The Applicant did not demonstrate any legal or equitable right to remain, and the indulgence sought was not justified by its conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution of writ of possession refused; Applicant's Notice of Motion dismissed with costs; further application for at least a seven day period refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for stay of execution of writ of possession refused.' "Applicant's Notice of Motion filed 11 September 2013 is dismissed with costs."]