Feldman v Blake Napier Ltd

The case of Feldman v Blake Napier Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Feldman, and her husband had previously been the registered proprietors of certain land. After almost 19 years, Feldman lodged a caveat against the land, claiming that the defendant, Blake Napier Ltd, had fraudulently transferred the land from her. The defendant served a lapsing notice on the caveat, and before any orders could be made ex parte to extend the operation of the caveat, the caveat lapsed. Feldman subsequently sought an order that would permit her to lodge another caveat. Additionally, she sought orders to direct certain non-party defendants to attend arbitration before the Jewish Court of Law.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Feldman was entitled to lodge a second caveat against the land. The court also had to determine whether the non-party defendants were required to attend arbitration before the Jewish Court of Law. The court considered whether there were any circumstances that would justify the lodgement of a second caveat, despite the first caveat having lapsed. Furthermore, the court examined the validity of the arbitration clause and whether it was enforceable against the non-party defendants.

The court found that there were no circumstances that would justify the lodgement of a second caveat, as the first caveat had already lapsed. The court held that the lapse of the caveat was not due to any fault on the part of Feldman, but rather the result of administrative delays. However, the court found that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable against the non-party defendants. The court held that the non-party defendants were bound by the arbitration clause, and were therefore required to attend arbitration before the Jewish Court of Law.

The court made no order permitting the lodgement of a second caveat. However, it did order that the non-party defendants were required to attend arbitration before the Jewish Court of Law. The court held that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, and that the non-party defendants were bound by its terms. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the usual rules regarding the lodgement of caveats. The court held that the non-party defendants were bound by the arbitration clause, and were therefore required to attend arbitration before the Jewish Court of Law.