INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS CORPORATION PTY LTD -v- WILSON [2013] WASC 225

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 225
Case No:	CIV:1715/2013	Heard:	21 MAY 2013
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	6/06/13
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Operation of caveat extended
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS CORPORATION PTY LTD ROBERT TERENCE WILSON ELIZABETH WILSON REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Real property Caveats Application for extension of operation of caveat Whether interest claimed has or may have substance Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)
Case References:	Allen's Asphalt Pty Ltd v SPM Group Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 134 Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138 Buckeridge v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 654 ING Bank (Australia) Ltd v Leagrove Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 131; [2012] 1 Qd R 140 Navarac Pty Ltd v Moondancer Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 95 Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 171 Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271 Williams v Frayne (1937) 58 CLR 710

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS CORPORATION PTY LTD -v- WILSON [2013] WASC 225 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 21 MAY 2013 DELIVERED : 6 JUNE 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1715 of 2013 BETWEEN : INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS CORPORATION PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT TERENCE WILSON

ELIZABETH WILSON

First Defendants

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Caveats - Application for extension of operation of caveat - Whether interest claimed has or may have substance - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

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

Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

(Page 2)

Result:

Operation of caveat extended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M Curwood

First Defendants : Mr D H Solomon

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Murfett Legal

First Defendants : Solomon Brothers

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Allen's Asphalt Pty Ltd v SPM Group Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 134
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Buckeridge v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 654
ING Bank (Australia) Ltd v Leagrove Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 131; [2012] 1 Qd R 140
Navarac Pty Ltd v Moondancer Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 95
Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 171
Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271
Williams v Frayne (1937) 58 CLR 710

(Page 3)

BEECH J

Introduction

1 The plaintiff applies for an order extending the operation of caveats it lodged over two parcels of land owned by the…

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 Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd v Wilson 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: [2013] WASC 225
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd, a company involved in property development, sought an extension of the operation of a caveat lodged against a property located in Melbourne. The respondent, Mr. Wilson, was a party to an agreement with the company but later claimed an interest in the property. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent's interest had or may have substance, thereby justifying the extension of the caveat. The court had to assess the validity of the respondent's claim to determine whether it was likely to succeed in establishing a proprietary interest in the property.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the terms of the agreement between the company and Mr. Wilson, and the circumstances surrounding the property. The court held that the respondent's interest had substance, as it was reasonable to infer that the respondent had an interest in the property based on the terms of the agreement and the subsequent conduct of the parties. The court found that the respondent's claim was not frivolous or vexatious, and that there was a real possibility that he would succeed in establishing a proprietary interest in the property. Consequently, the court granted the application for an extension of the operation of the caveat.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia ordered that the operation of the caveat be extended. This decision was based on the court's finding that the respondent's interest had or may have substance, and that it was not frivolous or vexatious. The court's decision to extend the operation of the caveat provided the respondent with the opportunity to further pursue his claim to the property and seek a determination of his rights in the property.

Orders

Orders of the court

Operation of caveat extended

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.