Legal Research
Cases
Mariconte v Batiste

Mariconte v Batiste

Case [2000] NSWSC 288 10 April 2000

Equitable Estoppel

Court-appointed receiver

Trusts & Equity

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 48 NSWLR 725

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Mariconte v Batiste [2000] NSWSC 288

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4582/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14 & 24 March, 3 & 5 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 10 April 2000

PARTIES :

John Mariconte (P1)
Jomar Investments Pty Ltd (P2)
Donna Batiste (D1)
Biscom Holdings Pty Ltd (D2)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : J Ireland QC (P) (14 March 2000)
M J Lawler (P) (24 March, 3 & 5 April 2000)
L J Aitken (D1)
M R Aldridge SC (Receiver)

SOLICITORS: McGirr James Hall & Associates (P) 14 March 2000
Selby(anderson) (P) (24 March, 3 & 5 April 2000)
Horowitz & Bilinsky (D)
Thomas Laycock (Receiver)

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - Court-appointed receiver - Court's power to give directions

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 23

CASES CITED: Davis v Gray (1872) 83 US 203
Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Men's Health Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 30 April 1998, unreported)
Law Society of New South Wales v Milios (1999) 33 ACSR 396
Re I00F Australian Trustees Limited [1999] SASC 461
Sanderson v Classic Car Insurances Pty Ltd (1985) 10 ACLR 115

DECISION: On Receiver's application, direction that he would be justified in selling the property to the first defendant on the terms and conditions submitted by her, and that he would not be justified in selling it to the first plaintiff on the terms and conditions submitted by him; plaintiff's application denied

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

MONDAY 10 APRIL 2000

4582/99 . JOHN MARICONTE & ANOR V DONNA BATISTE & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1   HIS HONOUR: This judgment relates to applications by the plaintiffs and by a receiver appointed by the Court, in each case seeking directions with respect to the sale of a property. The proceedings in which the applications are made have been contested with great vigour, and the commercial events to which they relate have developed swiftly. In these circumstances I intend to spend some time setting out the facts which are now in evidence before me.
2   The proceedings are a contest between the first plaintiff, Mr Mariconte, and the first defendant, Ms Batiste. The dispute relates to a property situated at 9 Watt Street Newcastle, on which there is a building known as the Newcastle Tattersalls Club. The registered proprietor of the property is the second defendant, Biscom Holdings Pty Ltd. The second plaintiff, Jomar Investments Pty Ltd, is the mortgagee of the property under two registered mortgages.

The acquisition and refurbishment of the Tattersalls Club

3   The property was acquired by Biscom in January 1998. At that time Mr Mariconte was the sole director, secretary and shareholder of Biscom. He incorporated a company called Chasen to act as the management company for the refurbishment of the Tattersalls Club, and he was the sole director, secretary and shareholder of that company. He was also the sole director and shareholder of Jomar.

4…

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 Mariconte v Batiste

Details

AGLC: Mariconte v Batiste [2000] NSWSC 288
Case: [2000] NSWSC 288
Decision Date: 10 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mariconte v Batiste involved a dispute regarding the appointment and actions of a court-appointed receiver. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mariconte, sought to challenge the actions and decisions of the receiver appointed over certain assets, appointed by the court. The defendant, Batiste, was the receiver in question. The central issue in the case was the extent of the court's power to give directions to a receiver and whether the court had overstepped its bounds in directing the receiver to act in a particular way.

The court examined the principles of equity and the authority vested in a court-appointed receiver. It was necessary to determine if the court had the power to direct the receiver's actions to the extent seen in this case, or whether such direction was beyond the scope of the court's authority. The court had to assess whether the receiver's actions were in line with the powers granted to them by the court and if any overreach constituted a breach of the receiver's duty.

In its decision, the court concluded that the actions of the receiver were within the scope of the powers granted by the court. The court emphasised the principle that a receiver is an officer of the court and must act in accordance with the directions given by the court. The court held that it had the inherent power to direct a receiver to ensure that the assets were managed properly and in the best interests of all parties involved. The court found that the receiver had not exceeded their authority and that the directions given were within the permissible scope of their duties. Consequently, the plaintiff's challenge to the receiver's actions was dismissed.

Orders