9 Nov 2010
MCMULLIN V CRESTON LIMITED HC HAM CIV-2010-419-1034
- Citation
- openlaw-fa46db7e_887a_4a72_a908_204c4a84c85b.pdf
- Court
- High Court
On the evidence before the Court there was an arguable case that $200,000 paid by the applicant was misapplied and could be traced into the respondent's Hillcrest properties and that Creston (through Mrs Thompson) may have had notice; because the factual disputes could not fairly be resolved summarily the threshold for s145A was met and the caveats should not lapse.