17 Jul 2020
The term 'accepts' in s 203 requires the person to consent to the transfer; registration of a vesting order without the Body Corporate's knowledge or consent did not constitute acceptance and therefore did not create personal liability under s 203; because s 99 LTA 1952 makes vesting orders ineffective until registration, consent to registration is required for liability to arise.
30 Sept 2013
Costs awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant because the court found the plaintiff was successful on the validity of the Property Law Act notice and the removal of the stock achieved the relief sought, such facts and the defendant's conduct rebutted the r 15.23 presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff pays the defendant's costs.
26 May 2010
The stay was declined because the appellants produced no evidence of arbitration or of any proprietary interest in the land, a Justice of the Peace lacked authority to discharge the mortgage debt, and the statutory and procedural rights of the mortgagee to vacant possession prevailed; balancing the stay factors did not favor granting a stay.