Legal Research
Cases
Malouf v O'Donohoe

Malouf v O'Donohoe

Case [2001] NSWSC 335 27 April 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Malouf v O'Donohoe [2001] NSWSC 335

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2372/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27/04/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 April 2001

PARTIES :

Anthony Mark Malouf (P)
Terence Markham O'Donohoe (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

COUNSEL : R W Tregenza (P)

SOLICITORS: Messrs Malouf (P)

CATCHWORDS: CONVEYANCING [189]- Caveats- Applications for extension- Not to be made ex parte- Not to be left to last moment.

LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act 1900, ss 74K, 74 O

CASES CITED: Wonderland Business Park Pty Ltd v Hartford Lane Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 86

DECISION: Order made.

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in Eq

FRIDAY 27 APRIL 2001

2372/01 - MALOUF v O’DONOHOE

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an ex parte application made under section 74K of the Real Property Act 1900 to extend a caveat. The statute requires that no ex parte application to extend a caveat is to be entertained unless the Court has dispensed with service.

2 At least since the decision of the then Chief Judge in Equity in Wonderland Business Park Pty Ltd v Hartford Lane Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 86 noted in 75 ALJ 226, the Court almost never makes an order of this nature ex parte. It is extremely difficult to see any justification for dispensing with service in cases where lawyers have left their application for dispensing with service to the last day and no other factor is present. Indeed it is difficult to see when the Court would ever be justified in dispensing with service in a case where there was an identifiable caveator in the jurisdiction.

3 However, as the practice may have been a little lax over the last few years I will on this occasion make an order under s 74 O allowing a fresh caveat to be lodged in identical terms to the current caveat, on condition that that caveat will be withdrawn next Wednesday, 2 May 2001, unless the Court extends the period.

4 I am doing this for two reasons; first, because there appears to have been genuine inadvertence in the instant case, rather than it being one where the application was deliberately left to the last day; secondly, there would not appear to be an impending contrary dealing and it is only fair that a short time be allowed for the profession to come to grips with the current practice.

***************

Last Modified: 05/02/2001

Details

AGLC: Malouf v O'Donohoe [2001] NSWSC 335
Case: [2001] NSWSC 335
Decision Date: 27 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Malouf v O'Donohoe arose before the New South Wales Supreme Court, where the primary dispute centred around the validity of an extension application for a caveat lodged against a property. The plaintiff, Malouf, sought to challenge the defendant, O'Donohoe's, application for an extension of the caveat period, arguing that it was both ex parte and made at an untimely stage. The court was tasked with determining the procedural fairness of the application and whether the circumstances warranted granting the extension.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's application for an extension of the caveat period could be made ex parte and at a late stage without contravening the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant had acted reasonably and in good faith when applying for the extension. The court needed to balance the interests of the parties and ensure that the procedural integrity of the conveyancing process was maintained.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised that extensions for caveats should not be made ex parte, and parties should not wait until the last possible moment to apply. The court found that the defendant's application was indeed ex parte and had been lodged at a very late stage, which was against the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's actions were not in good faith, as they had delayed unnecessarily before seeking the extension. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension, underscoring the importance of timely and fair procedures in conveyancing matters.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of the caveat period was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and timely action in the context of conveyancing and caveats.

Orders