Letila Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v DeBoni - [2005] WASC 6

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: LETILA PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) -v- DEBONI & ORS [2005] WASC 6

CORAM: COMMISSIONER SIOPIS SC

HEARD: 18 JANUARY 2005

DELIVERED : 18 JANUARY 2005

PUBLISHED : 8 FEBRUARY 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 1052 of 2005

BETWEEN: LETILA PTY LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
Plaintiff
AND
MICK DEBONI
CHERYL LYNN DEBONI
First Defendants
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Extension of caveat - Termination of contract for the sale of land - No caveatable interest - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act, s 138C

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J L Sher
First Defendants           :     Mr D L Jones
Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Corrs Chambers Westgarth
First Defendants           :     Joanne Matich & Associates
Second Defendant         :     No appearance

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

Custom Credit Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
KLDE Proprietary Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) v Commissioner of Stamp Duties for the State of Queensland (1984) 155 CLR 288

Case(s) also cited:

Capper v Thorpe [1998] HCA 24
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Corwest Management Pty Ltd [1978] WAR 129
Halse v Embling & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970734; 22 December 1997
Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22
Porter v McDonald & Anor [1984] WAR 271

COMMISSIONER SIOPIS SC: This is an application for the extension of a caveat under s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act.
The application was heard on 18 January 2005 on an urgent basis because the caveat, unless extended, was due to expire at midnight on 19 January 2005. I dismissed the application at the end of the hearing of the originating summons and advised that I would deliver my reasons later.
The plaintiff is under the control of Mr Simon Andrew Reid and Mr Jeffrey Lawrence Herbert who were appointed as receivers and managers by a Notice of Appointment dated 28 May 2004. The caveat which is the subject of this application was lodged by the plaintiff on 12 November 2004.
The caveat lodged by the plaintiff describes the first defendants as the registered proprietor. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is an interest "in fee simple as purchaser". The plaintiff relies on this statement in the caveat to support its claim: "Contract of Sale dated 10 May 2002 and 27 August 2003 made between the Registered Proprietor as vendor and Letila Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers) as purchaser. On 28 May 2004, Simon Reid and Jeffrey Lawrence Herbert were appointed receivers and managers of the purchaser." The caveat forbids the registration of any interest affecting the estate or interest "absolutely".
The facts appear from the affidavit of Mr Simon Andrew Reid dated 18 January 2005.
A contract for the sale of Lot 15 Burges Siding Road, York, being Lot 15 on Diagram 89041 of the whole of the land in Certificate of Title volume 2058, folio…

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 Letila Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v DeBoni 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: [2005] WASC 6
Decision Date: 8 FEBRUARY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Letila Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v DeBoni, the parties were engaged in a dispute regarding the extension of a caveat and the termination of a contract for the sale of land. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Letila Pty Ltd, represented by receivers and managers, sought an extension of a caveat over a property located in Maroubra, which was in the process of being sold to DeBoni. DeBoni, the purchaser, argued that the caveat should not be extended, as Letila no longer held a caveatable interest in the property.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Letila had a caveatable interest in the property that warranted the extension of the caveat. This required the court to consider the nature and extent of Letila's interest in the property at the time the caveat was initially lodged and whether any subsequent events had altered the position. The court was also required to consider the contract between Letila and DeBoni, specifically the terms and conditions that led to the termination of the contract.

The court held that Letila did not have a caveatable interest in the property at the time of the attempted extension of the caveat. The court found that the termination of the contract for the sale of land had effectively extinguished Letila's interest in the property, and therefore, the caveat could not be extended. The court relied on the specific facts of the case, including the terms of the contract and the events leading up to the termination, to conclude that Letila had no caveatable interest. The court determined that the matter turned on its own facts and could not be resolved by reference to general principles.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the caveat be removed from the register of titles. The court also directed that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings. This outcome effectively resolved the dispute between Letila and DeBoni, allowing DeBoni to proceed with the sale of the property without the hindrance of an extended caveat.

Orders