COOKE CONSULTING PTY LTD -v- JELLIE [2015] WASC 250

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 250
Case No:	CIV:1895/2015	Heard:	23 JUNE 2015
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	23/06/15
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted on an interim basis
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COOKE CONSULTING PTY LTD as Trustee for THE COOKE FAMILY TRUST SELWYN GORDON JELLIE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Caveats Application for extension of caveat Whether possible to lodge caveat over the interest of one joint tenant only Interim extension granted Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C
Case References:	Apostolos Andreas Shipping Company Ltd v Registrar of Titles (Unreported, WASC, Library No 7884, 6 October 1989) Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 Awadallah v Hymix Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 117 Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138 Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 2 Mason v Merrett (Unreported, WASC, Library No 7701, 12 June 1989) Paton v Hynes [2011] WASC 106 Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 171 Wichniewicz v Registrar of Titles [2014] WASC 18 Yaran Holdings Pty Ltd v Goldsmith 7 Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 171

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COOKE CONSULTING PTY LTD -v- JELLIE [2015] WASC 250 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 23 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1895 of 2015 BETWEEN : COOKE CONSULTING PTY LTD as Trustee for THE COOKE FAMILY TRUST

Plaintiff

AND

SELWYN GORDON JELLIE

First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Caveats - Application for extension of caveat - Whether possible to lodge caveat over the interest of one joint tenant only - Interim extension granted - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

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

Result:

Application granted on an interim basis

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M A Cheveralls

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Apostolos Andreas Shipping Company Ltd v Registrar of Titles (Unreported, WASC, Library No 7884, 6 October 1989)
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Awadallah v Hymix Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 117
Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 2
Mason v Merrett (Unreported, WASC, Library No 7701, 12 June 1989)
Paton v Hynes [2011] WASC 106
Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 171
Wichniewicz v Registrar of Titles [2014] WASC 18
Yaran Holdings Pty Ltd v Goldsmith 7 Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 171

PRITCHARD J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 June 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 This is an application made by…

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 Cooke Consulting Pty Ltd v Jellie 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 250
Decision Date: 23 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooke Consulting Pty Ltd v Jellie involved a dispute concerning the lodging of a caveat over a property. Cooke Consulting sought to lodge a caveat over a property held by Jellie as a joint tenant with another individual, aiming to protect their interest in the property. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to decide whether it was possible to lodge a caveat over the interest of one joint tenant only.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it was permissible to lodge a caveat over the interest of one joint tenant without affecting the other joint tenant's interest. This raised questions about the nature of joint tenancy and the extent to which a caveat could be used to protect the interest of one party without impacting the other. The court had to consider the principles of equity and the rights of joint tenants in the context of the lodgement of caveats.

In its reasoning, the court noted that while it is generally not possible to lodge a caveat over the interest of one joint tenant only, exceptions may apply depending on the specific circumstances. The court found that the application for an extension of the caveat was likely to succeed on its own facts, given the unique circumstances of the case. Consequently, the court granted the application for an interim extension of the caveat, pending a final determination of the matter. This decision underscored the importance of considering the individual facts of each case when determining the propriety of lodging a caveat over a joint tenant's interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted on an interim basis

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.