KWS Capital Pty Ltd v Love

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

KWS CAPITAL PTY LTD -v- LOVE [2013] WASC 294



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2013] WASC 294
Case No:CIV:2213/20137 AUGUST 2013
Coram:EDELMAN J8/08/13
17Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:KWS CAPITAL PTY LTD
ROSS MAITLAND LOVE
REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Catchwords:

Real property
Caveats
Application to extend operation of caveat
Alleged charge over interest in land arising from fee agreement
Construction of fee agreement
Whether claim has or may have substance
Balance of convenience

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 137 and s 138C

Case References:

Avco Financial Services Ltd v White [1977] VR 561
Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Bateson v Jones [2013] WASC 8
Composite Buyers Ltd v Soong (1995) 38 NSWLR 286
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
Davies v Davies [No 2] [2010] WASCA 151
Di Dio Nominees Pfy Ltd v Brian Mark Real Estate Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 732
Heritage Properties (No 3) Pty Ltd v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (1993) Q Conv R 54-448
Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] 1 All ER 494
Hoon v Westpoint Management Ltd [2011] WASC 239
Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd v Wilson [2013] WASC 225
Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22
Jireh International Pty Ltd t/as Gloria Jean's Coffee v Western Exports Services Inc [2011] NSWCA 137
Love v Brien [2012] WASC 457
McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd [2000] HCA 65; (2000) 203 CLR 579
MLW Technology Pty Ltd v May [2005] VSCA 29
Paton v Hynes [2011] WASC 106
Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271
Thorpe v Sizer Developments Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] WASC 151
Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd [1968] HCA 8; (1968) 118 CLR 429
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45; (2011) 86 ALJR 1
Wildgum Nominees Pty Ltd v Land Alliance Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 244


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : KWS CAPITAL PTY LTD -v- LOVE [2013] WASC 294 CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 7 AUGUST 2013 DELIVERED : 8 AUGUST 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2213 of 2013 BETWEEN : KWS CAPITAL PTY LTD
    Plaintiff

    AND

    ROSS MAITLAND LOVE
    First Defendant

    REGISTRAR OF TITLES
    Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Caveats - Application to extend operation of caveat - Alleged charge over interest in land arising from fee agreement - Construction of fee agreement - Whether claim has or may have substance - Balance of convenience

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 137 and s 138C

Result:

Application dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr J M Healy
    First Defendant : Mr A Metaxas
    Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Culshaw Miller
    First Defendant : Metaxas & Hager
    Second Defendant : No appearance



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read KWS Capital Pty Ltd v Love 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 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

KWS Capital Pty Ltd sought to extend the operation of a caveat it had entered over a property to prevent Love from proceeding with the sale of the property. Love had entered into a fee agreement with KWS Capital, and KWS Capital claimed that this agreement gave it a charge over Love's interest in the property. The dispute was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court needed to decide whether the fee agreement created a charge over Love's interest in the property, and if so, whether the claim had or may have substance, and whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the operation of the caveat. The court also needed to determine whether the fee agreement was in fact a contract for the sale and resale of the property, rather than a charge over Love's interest in the property.

The court found that the fee agreement was in fact a contract for the sale and resale of the property, rather than a charge over Love's interest in the property. The court held that the agreement did not create a charge over Love's interest in the property, and that the claim did not have or may have substance. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour extending the operation of the caveat. The court dismissed the application to extend the operation of the caveat.

The court's orders were that the application to extend the operation of the caveat was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.