Above All Rigging & Site Modifications Pty Ltd v Lang

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

ABOVE ALL RIGGING & SITE MODIFICATIONS PTY LTD -v- LANG [2015] WASC 414



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WASC 414
03/11/2015
Case No:CIV:2701/201529 OCTOBER 2015
Coram:MITCHELL J29/10/15
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:ABOVE ALL RIGGING & SITE MODIFICATIONS PTY LTD
RUSSELL STUART LANG
KERYN DIANNE LANG
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Catchwords:

Real property
Application to extend caveat
Whether equitable charge arises from provision of guarantee permitting creditor to lodge a caveat
Where defendants adduced uncontradicted oral evidence that loan the subject of the guarantee had been repaid

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138B, s 138C

Case References:

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 217 CLR 424
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549
Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561
Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Bateson v Jones [2013] WASC 8
Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd [2009] HCA 44; (2009) 239 CLR 269
Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11
Dominion Lifestyle Tower Apartment Pty Ltd v Global Capital Corporation Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 307; (2004) ANZ Conv R 561
Miluc Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] WASAT 68; (2008) 59 SR (WA) 50; (2008) 71 ATR 133
Nudd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2002] NSWSC 399
Southern Wine Corp Pty Ltd (in liq) v Frankland River Olive Co Ltd [2005] WASCA 236; (2005) 31 WAR 162
Troncone v Aliperti (1994) 6 BPR 13,291; (1994) ANZ Conv R 411
Yaran Holdings Pty Ltd v Goldsmith 7 Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 171


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : ABOVE ALL RIGGING & SITE MODIFICATIONS PTY LTD -v- LANG [2015] WASC 414 CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : 29 OCTOBER 2015 DELIVERED : 29 OCTOBER 2015 PUBLISHED : 3 NOVEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 2701 of 2015 BETWEEN : ABOVE ALL RIGGING & SITE MODIFICATIONS PTY LTD
    Plaintiff

    AND

    RUSSELL STUART LANG
    KERYN DIANNE LANG
    First Defendants

    THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
    Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Application to extend caveat - Whether equitable charge arises from provision of guarantee permitting creditor to lodge a caveat - Where defendants adduced uncontradicted oral evidence that loan the subject of the guarantee had been repaid

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138B, s 138C

Result:

Application dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr B P Wheatley
    First Defendants : In person
    Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Mossensons
    First Defendants : In person
    Second Defendant : No appearance



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 217 CLR 424
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549
Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561
Bashford v Bashford…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Above All Rigging & Site Modifications Pty Ltd v Lang and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] WASC 414
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Above All Rigging & Site Modifications Pty Ltd v Lang involved a dispute concerning a property in New South Wales. The applicant sought to extend a caveat that had been lodged over the property. The respondent contested the application, arguing that the applicant had no basis for the caveat as the underlying debt, for which the caveat was intended to secure, had been repaid. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the provision of a guarantee, which allowed the creditor to lodge a caveat, could give rise to an equitable charge. The court needed to determine if such an equitable charge existed and, if so, whether it justified the continuation of the caveat. The respondent submitted that the guarantee did not constitute a proprietary interest and, therefore, could not support the lodging of a caveat. The applicant argued that the guarantee was sufficient to create an equitable charge, thereby justifying the caveat.

The court examined the nature of the guarantee and concluded that it did not confer a proprietary interest upon the creditor. The court found that the evidence presented by the respondent, that the loan secured by the guarantee had been repaid, was uncontradicted and therefore established that the underlying debt no longer existed. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had no basis for maintaining the caveat. The court dismissed the application on the grounds that the equitable charge alleged by the applicant did not exist.

The final orders of the court were that the application to extend the caveat was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.