Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd

The case of Bist v Cyan Stone Clydesdale Estate 1 Pty Ltd involves an interlocutory application for an injunction and related issues concerning the indefeasibility of title, consumer law, and tortious claims. The applicants sought to challenge the registration of title under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), alleging that the title should be affected by a prior interest or claim under the "knowing receipt" limb of Barnes v Addy. Additionally, they sought to establish that a promise to transfer a lot of land not yet in existence constitutes a "service" under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and they claimed that the defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct and conspired by unlawful means. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether there was a real question to be tried concerning the indefeasibility of title and whether the applicants' claims could defeat the title by registration. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the promise to transfer a lot of land not yet in existence qualified as a "service" under the ACL and if an action for unconscionable conduct could be maintained against a party not directly involved in the supply of goods or services. Thirdly, the court needed to assess whether the applicants could maintain a claim in conspiracy by unlawful means when no intention to cause harm was shown, and the unlawful means were only prohibited by statute, which already provided remedies. Lastly, the court examined whether an injunction at common law was available where there was no evidence of an intention to interfere with contractual relations.

In its judgment, the court found that the applicants had not established a real question to be tried that would warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the claim under the "knowing receipt" limb of Barnes v Addy did not provide a sufficient basis to challenge the indefeasibility of the title. Regarding the consumer law issue, the court determined that the promise to transfer a lot of land not yet in existence did not constitute a "service" under the ACL. Consequently, the applicants could not maintain an action for unconscionable conduct against the defendants, who were not directly involved in the supply of goods or services. The court further ruled that the applicants could not proceed with a claim in conspiracy by unlawful means since there was no intention to cause harm shown and the unlawful means were only prohibited by statute, which already provided remedies. The court also found that there was no evidence of an intention to interfere with contractual relations, which would be necessary to justify an injunction at common law.

The interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the seventh to ninth respondents. The reasons for judgment were to be published only to the parties for 72 hours to allow for the identification of any commercial-in-confidence information that should not be disclosed. The proceeding was referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a docket judge.