Bransgrove v Permanent Custodians Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Bransgrove v Permanent Custodians Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a tenant, and the defendant, a mortgagee who was the landlord. The tenant had been assured by the landlord that a Notice to Occupy served to him was a mistake, and subsequently, the tenant did not take any action. When the tenant was later served with a Notice to Vacate by the sheriff, he sought an injunction to restrain his eviction. The court was tasked with determining whether the tenant had any equity against the mortgage or the mortgagee that would prevent his eviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tenant had an equity that could be recognised against the mortgagee, which would prevent the eviction. The court considered whether the tenant's assurance from the landlord that the Notice to Occupy was a mistake constituted an equity. The court also considered whether the tenant's inaction following this assurance could be interpreted as an abandonment of any potential equity.

The court held that the tenant's assurance from the landlord did not constitute an equity against the mortgage or the mortgagee. The court found that the tenant's inaction after being assured that the Notice to Occupy was a mistake meant that he had abandoned any potential equity. The court further held that there was no equity that could be recognised against the mortgagee to prevent the eviction. The court's decision was based on the principle that equity favours the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights. Consequently, the tenant's application for an injunction was dismissed.

The court made no further orders.