Girgis v Permanent Custodians Ltd

[2007] NSWSC 1025

CITATION:	Girgis v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1025
HEARING DATE(S):	06/09/07
JUDGMENT OF:	Gzell J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	6 September 2007
DECISION:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING - Land Titles under the Torrens System - Caveats against Dealings - Application to extend caveat lodged by former registered proprietor after mortgagee sale by auction - Allegation that mortgagee over-valued land and mortgage should be set aside or revised down to 80% of correct value - No estate or interest in the land
PARTIES:	Michael Girgis - Plaintiff (In Person) Permanent Custodians Ltd - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 4361/07
COUNSEL:	Mr Peter Newton - Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Kemp Strang Lawyers - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

THURSDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2007

4361/07 MICHAEL GIRGIS v PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LTD

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 In discourse with Michael Girgis, the plaintiff, I have expressed my view that there is no equitable interest that supports the caveat that has been lodged against the property.

2 Mr Girgis, who appears in person, is misinformed. He claims an estate or interest in the land as registered proprietor and mortgagor by reason of a dispute as to the terms of the mortgage and equitable relief available to him. But the property was sold at auction by the defendant, Permanent Custodians Ltd, as mortgagee and it was after that that Mr Girgis lodged his caveat.

3 Mr Girgis may have a claim in damages against Permanent Custodians for over-valuing the property but he no longer has an interest in the property as registered proprietor or otherwise. It is inappropriate to extend the caveat.

4 In an application such as this, similar considerations to those that apply in granting an interlocutory injunction arise. Mr Girgis has no arguable case that he holds an estate or interest in the land. The balance of convenience favours the caveat not being extended to allow completion of the contract for sale of the property. Damages are an adequate remedy for Mr Girgis in the circumstances.

5 In my view, the appropriate course is to dismiss paragraph 1 of the summons and I do so. I direct that this order may be entered forthwith. I stand the summons over before the Registrar at 9.30 am on Thursday 20 September 2007.

**********