Conveyancing - Real property - Caveats - Application to remove caveats - Whether caveators have established a serious question to be tried as to caveatable interest - Turns on own facts
Conveyancing - Real property - Caveats - Statutory charge for legal costs incurred in proceedings resulting in recovery or preservation of property - Whether serious question to be tried that caveator had such statutory charge
Conveyancing - Real property - Caveats - Alienation of land voidable as made with intent to defraud creditors - Whether serious question to be tried that such alienation
[This judgment was delivered at the hearing and has been edited from the transcript.]
This is an application by notice of originating summons for orders pursuant to Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) s 138 (the Application). The principal provision is s 138(2), which follows s 138(1), which is concerned with the notification by the Registrar to a person, including the registered proprietor against whose title to deal with the estate or interest a caveat has been lodged, of…
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 Gannaway v Chin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gannaway v Chin [2011] WASC 252
Case
[2011] WASC 252
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Gannaway v Chin involved a dispute regarding the removal of caveats from a property. The caveators were contesting the removal of the caveats on the grounds that they had a caveatable interest in the property, which was in dispute. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the caveators had established a serious question to be tried as to their caveatable interest, whether they had a statutory charge for legal costs incurred in the proceedings, and whether the alienation of the land was voidable as it was made with intent to defraud creditors.
The court found that the question of whether the caveators had established a serious question to be tried as to their caveatable interest was to be determined by considering the facts of the case. The court held that the caveators had not established a serious question to be tried as to their interest in the property. The court also found that the caveators did not have a statutory charge for legal costs incurred in the proceedings, as the statutory charge did not apply to the facts of the case. Finally, the court held that the alienation of the land was not voidable as it was made with intent to defraud creditors, as there was no evidence to support this claim.
The court ordered that the caveats be removed from the property. The court also ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application. The court held that the respondents were entitled to costs as the applicants had not established a serious question to be tried as to their interest in the property or their entitlement to a statutory charge for legal costs. The court further held that the applicants had not established a serious question to be tried as to the voidability of the alienation of the land.