Boccamazzo v Kangaroo Corner Farm Pty Ltd - [2020] WASC 234

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   BOCCAMAZZO -v- KANGAROO CORNER FARM PTY LTD [2020] WASC 234
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   19 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   22 JUNE 2020
PUBLISHED           :   22 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1489 of 2020
BETWEEN:   GIUSEPPE BOCCAMAZZO
Applicant
AND
KANGAROO CORNER FARM PTY LTD
First Respondent
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Caveat - Maintaining caveat based on claim of equitable lien - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893

Result:

Caveat extended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	P N Poliwka
First Respondent	:	C P K Russell
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Poliwka Legal
First Respondent	:	Greenstone Legal
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

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

Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11
Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 171

MASTER SANDERSON:

This is the applicant's application pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893, for the extension of a caveat over certain property located in Forest Hill. The action was brought because the first respondent, as the owner of the land, caused the second respondent to issue a 21‑day notice. The applicant says it has an equitable lien over the land or at least there is a serious question to be tried as to whether or not it has an equitable lien.[1] It also says the balance of convenience favours the extension of the caveat.[2] The legal principles applicable were not in dispute. Both parties were content to rely on the principles set out by Edelman J in Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11.
[1] Applicant's outline of submissions filed 8.05.2020 [7] ‑ [13].
[2] Applicant's outline of submissions filed 8.05.2020 [19] ‑ [26].
There is one preliminary matter which should be mentioned at the outset. The caveat lodged by the applicant was an absolute caveat. A reading of the evidence makes it clear any caveat on the property should be a subject to claim caveat. Counsel for the applicant conceded this at the commencement of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the first respondent sought an order amending the caveat forthwith. By agreement between the parties, I made that order. So the question then is whether the caveat in its amended form can be maintained.
The relevant circumstances can be summarised in this way. The applicant is an earthmover who was engaged to perform earthmoving works at the direction of Claire Pragnell and Michael Jackman. These two persons were at all material times directors and shareholders of both the first respondent and a company known as O.S.I.B Pty Ltd (OSIB). OSIB was licensed by the Department of Environmental Regulation to conduct a wastewater treatment plant on the Forest Hill property.[3]
[3] Applicant's outline of submissions filed 8.05.2020 [14].
A dispute has arisen between the parties as to the way in which the applicant performed work on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boccamazzo v Kangaroo Corner Farm Pty Ltd 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: [2020] WASC 234
Decision Date: 22 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Boccamazzo v Kangaroo Corner Farm, the applicant, Boccamazzo, sought to maintain a caveat based on a claim of equitable lien. The respondent, Kangaroo Corner Farm, argued that the caveat should be removed, contending that the claim was not supported by a sufficient basis. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether Boccamazzo's claim of equitable lien was sufficient to justify the maintenance of the caveat. The court was required to determine the strength and nature of the claim, as well as its alignment with the legal principles governing equitable liens and caveats. The respondent challenged the applicant's ability to demonstrate a proprietary interest or a claim that would warrant the preservation of the property's status quo.

The court examined the nature of the applicant's claim and found that the equitable lien was indeed grounded in specific facts pertinent to the transaction between the parties. The court held that the claim of equitable lien was substantiated by a substantial basis, as it was tied to the applicant's role in the transaction and the respondent's obligations. Consequently, the court upheld the caveat, affirming that it was appropriate to maintain it based on the applicant's claim of equitable lien. The court emphasised that the strength of the claim depended on its own facts, a principle that guided the decision.

The final orders were that the caveat lodged by Boccamazzo be maintained, and that the respondent, Kangaroo Corner Farm, bear the costs of the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of assessing the specific circumstances surrounding each claim of equitable lien and the necessity for a strong factual basis to support the maintenance of a caveat.

Orders