Bond Global Capital Pty Ltd v Austral Developers Pty Ltd

The case of Bond Global Capital Pty Ltd v Austral Developers Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the priority of claims to the sale proceeds of two properties, held by the Court pursuant to a Mareva injunction. The plaintiff, Bond Global Capital, claimed priority over the proceeds based on an equitable mortgage over one of the properties. Several defendants sought to assert their interest in the Kelly Street property, arguing they each held a purchaser's lien as a result of purchasing lots in an unregistered plan of subdivision that was subsequently rescinded. The defendants claimed that their equitable interests should prevail over the plaintiff's claim, particularly in light of alleged postponing conduct by the plaintiff.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its claim for priority over the sale proceeds, and whether the defendants' equitable interests could be considered mere equities, thereby justifying the granting of summary judgment in the plaintiff's favour. The court had to determine whether the defendants' claims and the allegations of postponing conduct constituted contestable matters that precluded the grant of summary judgment. The court also considered whether the defendants' purchaser's liens could be recognised in light of the rescinded subdivision.

In ruling on the application for summary judgment, the court held that the defendants' claims, including the purchaser's liens and allegations of postponing conduct, were contestable and not appropriate for determination by summary judgment. The court found that the defendants had established a sufficient basis for their claims, which included the purchase of lots in the unregistered subdivision and the subsequent rescission of the subdivision. These claims, coupled with the allegations of postponing conduct, created a factual dispute that precluded the grant of summary judgment in the plaintiff's favour. The court concluded that the defendants' rights could not be dismissed as mere equities, and therefore, the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was denied.

The court did not make any final orders in this summary judgment application, as it was focused solely on whether summary judgment was appropriate. The case was to proceed to a full hearing to determine the priority of the claims to the sale proceeds.