EDPI Pty. Limited v Rapdocs Pty. Limited - [2005] NSWSC 644

CITATION:
EDPI PTY. LIMITED v. RAPDOCS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR [2005] NSWSC 644

HEARING DATE(S): 14 to 17 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

1 July 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF:
Hall J at 1

DECISION:
I make orders in terms of paragraphs one to five, as amended, of MFI 1. Costs reserved

CASES CITED:
Woodward v. Page (1989) 7 BPR 14
Appleton Papers Inc. v. Tomasetti Papers Pty. Limited (1983) 3 NSWLR 208
Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty. Limited v. Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 194 CLR 1

PARTIES:
EDPI PTY. LIMITED v.
RAPDOCS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC No. 5172 of 2004

COUNSEL:
Plaintiff: D. Barren/P. Castley
Defendant: I. Roche

SOLICITORS:
Plaintiff: Barclay Benson
Defendant: Hancock Alldis & Roskov

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HALL, J.

FRIDAY 1 JULY 2005

No. 5172 of 2004

EDPI PTY. LIMITED v. RAPDOCS PTY. LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 17 June 2005, I made orders in terms of MFI 1. At that time I indicated that I would publish my reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.

2 On 26 May 2005, the plaintiff filed a notice of motion in which the following orders were sought:-

2. An order that Caveat No. AA922102 be removed from Lot 3 of Deposited Plan 752053 corresponding to land situated at 470-472 Pennant Hills Road, Pennant Hills.

3. An order that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales deliver up to the plaintiff the Certificate of Title of Lot 3 of Deposited Plan 752053.”

3 The premises 470-472 Pennant Hills Road, Pennant Hills consists of three lots of which Lot 3 is one. All three lots are in the name of the plaintiff.

4 The substantial issues in the proceedings arise from the cross-claim filed by Rapdocs Pty. Limited on 14 October 2004 in which the cross-claimant claims declaratory and other relief in respect of what is termed the EDPI Trust. In particular, Rapdocs seeks a declaration that it is the beneficial owner of 20 units in the EDPI Trust, alternatively, a declaration that the First Cross-Defendant as Trustee of the EDPI unit trust (EDPI Pty. Limited) holds the land upon trust for Rapdocs as to two-thirds shares and Nader (a reference to Mr. Nader Zoljalali) as to a one-third share as tenants in common. It is unnecessary to set out the other alternative forms of relief claimed in the cross-claim.

5 A defence has been filed to the cross-claim and the Certificates of Title, the subject of the application of the proceedings brought by the plaintiff for delivery up of them, have been lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme Court and are being held in the Registrar’s custody pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Factual background

6 For the purposes of this interlocutory judgment, it is sufficient if I record the factual background based upon the plaintiff’s written outline of submissions.

“4. On or…

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 EDPI Pty. Limited v Rapdocs Pty. Limited 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: [2005] NSWSC 644
Decision Date: 1 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of EDPI Pty. Limited v. Rapdocs Pty. Limited, heard by Hall J. at the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involved a dispute concerning the ownership and control of three lots of land, specifically Lot 3, located at 470-472 Pennant Hills Road, Pennant Hills. EDPI Pty. Limited, the plaintiff, sought the removal of a caveat on Lot 3 and the delivery of the Certificate of Title for the lots. Rapdocs Pty. Limited, the defendant, had filed a cross-claim asserting its entitlement to a share in the property, either as a unit holder in the EDPI Trust or as a beneficial owner as a tenant in common with EDPI. The legal issues before the court revolved around the validity of the cross-claim, the existence of a trust, and the rights of the parties concerning the property.

In ruling on the application, Hall J. considered the principles governing the removal of caveats under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) and the criteria for granting interlocutory injunctive relief. The court examined whether the cross-claim established a prima facie case or a serious issue to be tried that would entitle the defendants to relief concerning Lot 3. The court also weighed the potential injury to the plaintiff if the caveat were not removed against the injury to the defendants if it were. Additionally, the court considered whether the interests of an innocent third party, Parisi Homes Pty. Limited, should influence the decision. Hall J. concluded that the cross-claim did not establish a serious issue regarding Lot 3 and that the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat. The court made orders to remove the caveat on Lot 3 and to deliver the Certificate of Title to the plaintiff, EDPI Pty. Limited.

Orders