Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Longcake - [2019] WASC 381

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   LEADER COMPUTERS PTY LTD -v- LONGCAKE [2019] WASC 381
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   15 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   15 OCTOBER 2019
PUBLISHED           :   24 OCTOBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2214 of 2019
BETWEEN:   LEADER COMPUTERS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
CHRISTOPHER LONGCAKE
First Defendant
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for extension of caveat - Whether serious question to be tried - Whether balance of convenience favours extension - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) s 138C

Result:

Application successful
Extension of caveat granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr M C Goldblatt
First Defendant	:	Mr J Jacobson
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Oakbridge Lawyers Pty Ltd
First Defendant	:	Jacobson and Associates
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Bride v Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

By originating summons filed on 10 July 2019 the plaintiff applied pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) to extend the operation of a caveat registered against the title of a residential property in Meadow Springs and a caveat registered against a residential property in Tapping. The first defendant is one of the registered proprietors of each of those properties.
At the hearing of this matter on 15 October 2019 I made orders extending the operation of the caveats and said I would publish reasons for doing so. These are those reasons.

The evidence

The plaintiff relied on the following affidavits:
(a)an affidavit of Montgomery James Vallve sworn 10 July 2019;[1]
(b)an affidavit of Christopher John Pittman sworn 26 September 2019; and
(c)an affidavit of Alan Tan sworn 25 September 2019.
[1] The plaintiff did not read par 6 of Mr Vallve's affidavit.
The first defendant relied on two affidavits sworn by him on 9 August 2019 and 8 October 2019, and two affidavits sworn by his son, Mr Daniel Longcake, on the same dates.

Factual background

The plaintiff is a wholesaler of computer equipment. In March 2017 Mr Longcake conducted a business as a sole trader in the field of information technology. For that purpose Mr Longcake purchased computer equipment from the plaintiff.
In March 2017 Mr Longcake was introduced to Mr Alan Tan, the State Manager of the plaintiff. Emails sent by Mr Longcake to Mr Tan on 18 and 20 March 2017 disclose that Mr Longcake used a logo which incorporated the words 'Longware IT Solutions' to promote his business.
Mr Longcake established a trading account with the plaintiff. He did this by completing a form available on the plaintiff's website. To complete the form Mr Longcake was required to provide his Australian Business Number (ABN). On provision of the ABN the form was partially populated automatically with information derived, I infer, from a searchable database of ABNs maintained by the Commonwealth Government. This form included a space for the insertion…

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 Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Longcake

Details

AGLC: Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Longcake [2019] WASC 381
Case: [2019] WASC 381
Decision Date: 24 OCTOBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leader Computers Pty Ltd v Longcake involved a dispute over the validity of a caveat entered by Longcake against Leader Computers' property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Leader Computers sought an extension of the caveat, which had already been in place for over a year. Longcake opposed the extension, arguing that there was no serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour the extension.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat. The court needed to determine if the caveator had a real prospect of success on the merits of the case and whether the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo by extending the caveat. The court also needed to consider the potential prejudice that either party would suffer if the caveat was or was not extended.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the validity of the caveat. The court held that the merits of the case were not to be determined at this stage, but that the issues raised by Leader Computers were sufficient to warrant an extension of the caveat. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat, as Leader Computers would suffer significant prejudice if the caveat was not extended. The court held that Leader Computers' ability to sell the property was being impeded by the caveat and that this was a significant factor in favour of extending the caveat.

The court granted Leader Computers' application for an extension of the caveat. The court ordered that the caveat be extended for a further period of six months, subject to any orders made by the court in the underlying proceeding. The court also ordered that Longcake pay Leader Computers' costs of the application.

Orders