13 Sept 2019
The caveat was ordered to lapse because the respondent provided an enforceable undertaking to pay $120,000 of the net sale proceeds into court to be held on interest bearing deposit pending determination of the applicant's substantive proceedings; directions were given for a judicial settlement conference to manage the dispute.
13 Jul 2018
The plaintiff was entitled to enforce the 5 Owners Agreement against the defendants; the defendants remained contractually liable despite their sale to Sanli and had no defence to the claim; summary judgment was appropriate and specific performance was ordered requiring the defendants to give consent, procure third‑party consents and, if necessary, initiate s145A Land Transfer Act procedures to remove impediments.
20 Nov 2015
The caveat was sustained because HSW demonstrated an arguable beneficial interest under the sale agreement; the Cathros failed to establish an obvious implied term or clear cancellation of the contract; the caveat remains but is conditional on HSW diligently prosecuting District Court proceedings for specific performance.
6 Nov 2015
The starting point of costs is category 2B; no uplift was awarded because the respondent did not make a qualifying settlement offer but only invitations to negotiate, so r14.6(3) and r14.11 did not apply; the applicants' without prejudice offer could not justify reduction because the court lacked necessary comparative information (purchase and sale prices); accordingly applicants ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis and disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
21 Feb 2014
The originating application was dismissed because the caveat was inappropriately worded and could not properly be maintained against Ms Chen, there was no basis to maintain the caveat as framed; however the applicants were permitted to commence a s148 application to address any legitimate claim against Mr Li, and respondents were entitled to costs on a 2B basis for the interlocutory dismissal.
23 Feb 2012
On the uncontested documentary and affidavit evidence (settlement statements, bank records, mortgage repayments, invoices and accounts), the Court concluded that after repayment of the first and second mortgages and deduction of proper sale expenses and adjustments, the amount representing the net sale proceeds available to be paid into Court was $3,673.90 (and that the $400,000 deposit had been applied to capital works), and that sum has been paid into Court accordingly.
25 Mar 2011
The caveat had lapsed by operation of s145A(3) and the Court had no jurisdiction to revive it; the separate s148 application for leave to lodge a second caveat was refused because the applicant's asserted interest was weak and potentially a sham, he provided no adequate explanation for failing to preserve his original caveat, and granting leave would cause unavoidable prejudice to the mortgagee which had an unconditional sale contract.
8 Dec 2010
Receivers have statutory authority to manage and sell the registered land and to recover possession; defendants produced no credible evidence of a lease, licence or proprietary interest and failed to establish an arguable beneficial interest under LTA s137 to sustain the caveat; accordingly summary judgment for possession and removal of caveats is warranted.