CITATION: FTFS Holdings Pty Ltd v Business Acquisitions Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1337 HEARING DATE(S): 02/11/06 JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Duty ListJUDGMENT OF: Brereton J EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11/02/2006 DECISION: Leave granted to file summons with abridgment of time for service CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY - Torrens Title - Caveats against dealings - third attempt to procure removal of caveat - whether abuse of process LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 74MA PARTIES: FTFS Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 105 403 718 (P)
Business Acquisitions Australia Pty Ltd ACN 114 268 361 (D)FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5595/06 COUNSEL: J Wong (sol) (P)
Ex parteSOLICITORS: Accentro Legal, Solicitors (P)
Ex parte
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DUTY LIST
BRERETON J
Thursday 2 November 2006
5595/06 FTFS Holdings Pty Limited v Business Acquisitions Australia Pty Limited
JUDGMENT (Ex tempore)
1 HIS HONOUR: In this matter the plaintiff seeks leave to file a summons returnable tomorrow with an abridgement of time for service to 7pm today for an order under Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 74MA, for the withdrawal of a caveat. Although I would not normally take time over an application for an abridgement of time for service, the degree of abridgement sought and the history of the matter has caused me occasion to pause.
2 The history includes that, after a contested hearing on 14 August 2006, Palmer J dismissed the present plaintiff's application for an order under s 74MA that the same caveat be withdrawn. Four days after that judgment was given, on 18 August 2006, the present plaintiff served a lapsing notice in respect of the same caveat, and on 6 September 2006 Palmer J made an order that the operation of the caveat be extended until further order, and ordered that the present plaintiff pay the present defendant's costs on an indemnity basis for the reason that the lapsing notice was premature and occasioned unnecessary litigation.
3 That history has therefore caused me to examine with some care whether the Court should lend its imprimatur to the filing of yet another summons attacking the same caveat, particularly on short notice.
4 However, having looked at the judgment of Palmer J, particularly that of 14 August 2006, it is apparent that the previous attacks on the caveat were as to the form of the caveat, its sufficiency in describing a caveatable interest, and the sufficiency of the facts and documentation on which it relied to found a caveatable interest. This application is made on a completely different basis, namely that the plaintiff offers to secure an amount greater than that which it believes could be secured by the instrument on which the caveat relies, so as to found an argument that the balance of convenience no longer favours making the caveat. The plaintiff has sought the defendant's consent to that course, but the only response has been an oral one demanding a much greater sum which, it is at least arguable, would not be covered by the security interest created by the exclusive mandate letter on which the caveat relies.
5 The caveat has caused the plaintiff's financier to refuse to proceed with a finance transaction, as indicated in a letter dated 31 October, and as a result the builder of the development on the plaintiff's property has suspended works.
6 I think those matters make out a sufficient case of urgency and that it is not an abuse of process for the plaintiff to attempt yet again to have this caveat removed.
7 However, I see no point in making the summons returnable tomorrow since an adjournment is inevitable. I will make the summons returnable on Tuesday of next week.
8 Upon the undertaking of Jonathan Wong, solicitor, to pay the appropriate filing fees, I grant leave to the plaintiff FTFS Holdings Pty Limited to file a summons and a notice of motion, each in the form initialled by me, dated this day and placed with the papers. I direct that the summons and the motion be returnable at 10am on 7 November 2006 before the duty Judge. I abridge time for service of the summons and motion to 7pm today, 2 November 2006. I direct that the summons and motion and supporting affidavit shall be sufficiently served if served on the office of Edwin Davey Solicitors, at level 5, 75 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
**********
- AGLC
- FTFS Holdings Pty Ltd v Business Acquisitions Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1337
- Case
- [2006] NSWSC 1337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's third application to remove the caveat constituted an abuse of process. This required consideration of the legal principles surrounding the lodging of caveats and the circumstances under which a party may be deemed to have abused the process of the court. The court also had to assess whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the defendant's application being dismissed.
In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the defendant had previously made two unsuccessful attempts to have the caveat removed, which had been based on weak arguments. The third application was similarly lacking in merit. The court found that the defendant's conduct in making the third application, without any substantive change in circumstances, amounted to an abuse of the court's process. The court emphasised the importance of the integrity of the Torrens title system and the need to prevent parties from repeatedly lodging frivolous caveats to achieve their objectives. Consequently, the defendant's application was dismissed with costs.
The final orders of the court were that the defendant's application to remove the caveat was dismissed, and the costs of the proceedings were awarded to the plaintiff. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of fairness and justice in the administration of the Torrens title system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.