Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Naturelink Environmental Services Pty Ltd

Leda Holdings Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought possession of property against Naturelink Environmental Services Pty Ltd, the defendant, following orders for possession made by consent between the plaintiff and the defendant. The occupier of the property, who was also a guarantor of the second registered mortgage, applied to be joined as a defendant in the proceedings after the writ had been issued. This application was made alongside an application for a stay of the writ of possession. The court was required to determine whether the occupier was entitled to be joined as a defendant and whether the writ of possession should be stayed pending the outcome of that application.

The court held that the occupier had no standing to be joined as a defendant in the proceedings as they were not a party to the consent orders for possession made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court found that the occupier's application to be joined as a defendant was an attempt to circumvent the consent orders and was an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court held that there were no grounds to stay the writ of possession as the occupier had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in their application to be joined as a defendant. The application for a stay was dismissed, and the writ of possession was allowed to proceed.

In conclusion, the court found that the occupier had no standing to be joined as a defendant in the proceedings and dismissed their application. The court also dismissed the application for a stay of the writ of possession. The writ of possession was allowed to proceed as per the consent orders made between the plaintiff and the defendant.