EHRENFELD -v- CROSSCITY ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASC 308

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 308
Case No:	CIV:1888/2007	Heard:	7 NOVEMBER 2007
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	18/12/07
No of pages:	22	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to extend operation of caveat granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL EHRENFELD CROSSCITY ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 081 957 397) REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Application to extend operation of caveat Whether plaintiff has equitable interest in the land Conditional contract
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138A, s 138C
Case References:	Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 Brown v Heffer (1967) 116 CLR 344 Central Trust and Safe Deposit Co v Snider (1916) 1 AC 266 Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v ISPT Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 639 Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42 Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331 Fernandes v Houstein (1963) 4 FLR 355 Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418 Howard v Miller [1915] AC 318 Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22 Kuper v Keywest Constructions Pty Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 419 Lee v Mavaddat [2007] WASC 18 Legione v Hately (1983) 152 CLR 406 Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537 Re CM Group Pty Ltd's Caveat [1986] Qd R 381 Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : EHRENFELD -v- CROSSCITY ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASC 308 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 7 NOVEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 19 DECEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1888 of 2007 BETWEEN : DANIEL EHRENFELD

Plaintiff

AND

CROSSCITY ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 081 957 397)

First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Application to extend operation of caveat - Whether plaintiff has equitable interest in the land - Conditional contract

Legislation:

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

Result:

Application to extend operation of caveat granted

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S J Davis

First Defendant : Mr D K Barker

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Taylor Linfoot & Holmes

First Defendant : Chalmers Legal Studio

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Brown v Heffer (1967) 116 CLR 344
Central Trust and Safe Deposit Co v Snider (1916) 1 AC 266
Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v ISPT Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 639
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331
Fernandes v Houstein (1963) 4 FLR 355
Gange v Sullivan (1966) 116 CLR 418
Howard v Miller [1915] AC 318
Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22
Kuper v Keywest Constructions Pty Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 419
Lee v Mavaddat [2007] WASC 18
Legione v Hately (1983) 152 CLR 406
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982)…

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.

Continue reading Ehrenfeld v CrossCity Enterprises Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ehrenfeld v CrossCity Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 308
Case: [2007] WASC 308
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ehrenfeld v CrossCity Enterprises Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Ehrenfeld, and the defendant, CrossCity Enterprises Pty Ltd, over a property located at 109 New Canterbury Road, Canterbury. Ehrenfeld had lodged a caveat against the defendant's application for a certificate of title over the property, which was conditional upon the removal of the caveat. The dispute centred on whether Ehrenfeld had an equitable interest in the property sufficient to justify the extension of the caveat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Ehrenfeld had an equitable interest in the property, and if so, whether this interest warranted the extension of the caveat. The court needed to determine whether the terms of the conditional contract between Ehrenfeld and the vendor were sufficient to establish an equitable interest, and if such an interest existed, whether it was necessary to extend the caveat to protect that interest. The court also considered whether the defendant's actions in applying for a certificate of title constituted unconscionable conduct.

The court found that Ehrenfeld did indeed have an equitable interest in the property based on the conditional contract. The terms of the contract, which were binding and intended to be legally enforceable, gave Ehrenfeld a right to purchase the property. The court held that this equitable interest warranted the extension of the caveat to protect Ehrenfeld's rights. The court also found that the defendant's application for a certificate of title did not constitute unconscionable conduct, but the primary concern was to protect the equitable interest held by Ehrenfeld. Therefore, the application to extend the operation of the caveat was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to extend operation of caveat granted.

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.