FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edlan Pty Ltd v McIntyre [1999] FCA 523
REAL PROPERTY – equitable lien – whether a lien arose in favour of the vendor as security for a promise to assume a responsibility to a third party.
Real Property Act (NSW)
Buckland v Pocknell [1843] 60 ER 157 considered
Davies v Littlejohn (1923) 34 CLR 174 considered
Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 considered
Makreth v Symmons [1808] 33 ER 778) cited
Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 102 ALR 551 considered
Wossidlo v Catt (1935) 52 CLR 301 consideredEDLAN NO. 54 PTY LIMITED v AURO ROMANO McINTYRE
NG 292 of 1998
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J.
DATE: 29 APRIL 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 292 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
EDLAN NO. 54 PTY LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
AURO ROMANO MCINTYRE
RespondentJUDGE:
BEAUMONT J.
DATE OF ORDER:
29 APRIL 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Edlan’s claim for a declaration that it is entitled to a charge or lien over the “Riverview Lodge” property is refused.
2.Liberty is reserved to the respondent to apply for further relief in respect of caveat No. 3554658.
3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this proceeding.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 292 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
EDLAN NO. 54 PTY LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
AURO ROMANO MCINTYRE
Respondent
JUDGE:
BEAUMONT J.
DATE:
29 APRIL 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT J:
INTRODUCTION
These reasons should be read in conjunction with my reasons dated 11 September 1998 in proceedings NG 672 of 1996 between parties including the present parties dealing with the “Riverview Lodge” transaction claim. I then ordered, inter alia, that on this claim Mr McIntyre pay Edlan No. 54 Pty Limited (“Edlan”) the sum of $505,476.43, and reserved liberty to Edlan to apply for interest. Edlan did so apply. On 8 February 1999, I held that Edlan was entitled to interest. On 25 February 1999 I ordered that Mr McIntyre pay interest to Edlan in the amount of $61,363.45.
The origin of this particular matter is a summons filed by Edlan in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 14 January 1998 seeking, inter alia, an order for the extension of a caveat lodged by it against dealings in the lands under the Real Property Act (NSW) known as “Riverview Lodge” (“the Property”). The Supreme Court ordered that the proceeding be cross-vested to this Court.
Edlan’s caveat claims an equitable interest being a lien to secure the sum of $505,476.43 agreed to be paid by the registered proprietor to the caveator in consideration of the transfer of the Property from the caveator to the registered proprietor.
It is common ground that extension of the caveat now depends upon whether Edlan has a valid equitable lien.
At a directions hearing, Edlan indicated that the substantive…
Continue reading Edlan Pty Ltd v McIntyre
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Edlan Pty Ltd v McIntyre [1999] FCA 523
- Case
- [1999] FCA 523
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Edlan had a legitimate basis to claim a charge or lien over the Riverview Lodge property. This involved examining the terms of the agreement between Edlan and the third party, and assessing whether any interest that Edlan claimed could be substantiated by law. Additionally, the court had to consider the validity of McIntyre’s caveat and whether it represented a genuine assertion of interest in the property.
The court found that Edlan’s claim was not substantiated by the terms of the agreement with the third party and therefore could not establish a charge or lien over the Riverview Lodge property. The court held that McIntyre’s caveat was valid and represented a genuine interest in the property, thus refusing Edlan’s claim for a declaration. The court reserved liberty to McIntyre to apply for further relief regarding the caveat, and ordered Edlan to pay McIntyre’s costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Edlan’s claim for a declaration that it is entitled to a charge or lien over the “Riverview Lodge” property is refused.
2. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to apply for further relief in respect of caveat No. 3554658.
3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this proceeding.
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.