Legal Research
Cases
Mayrin DM Pty Ltd v Kaiyu Deng

Mayrin DM Pty Ltd v Kaiyu Deng

Link copied

Case Copied 31 October 2019 26 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Mayrin DM Pty Ltd v Kaiyu Deng [2019] NSWSC 1552
Hearing dates: 23 October 2019
Date of orders: 31 October 2019
Decision date: 31 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Rein J
Decision:
See [48]-[49].

Catchwords:
LAND LAW – Caveats – Caveatable interest – What constitutes a caveatable interest – Whether a constructive trust not yet declared by a court is a caveatable interest – Plaintiff seeking an extension of the caveat in circumstances where the only proceeding currently on foot is the plaintiff’s application for preliminary discovery.
LAND LAW – Caveats – Formal requirements – Requirement to specify particulars of estate or interest claimed – Where defendants assert that the plaintiff has not sufficiently articulated the basis of the claimed interest; described in the caveat as a “beneficial interest in trust” arising from the defendants’ breach of fiduciary, contractual and other duties, rather than specifically as a “constructive trust”.
Legislation Cited:
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Real Property Regulation 2014 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
A-G for Hong Kong v Reid (1994) 1 AC 324
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Choi v Kim [2013] NSWSC 1774
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89
Furs Ltd v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583
Gerard v Jacquin [2011] NSWSC 913
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 6; (2012) 200 FCR 296
Hanson Construction Materials v Vimwise Civil Engineering [2005] NSWSC 880; (2005) 12 BPR 23,355
Hatfield v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 69; (2010) 77 NSWLR 506
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443
Jensen v Giugni (1994) 6 BPR 97,495
John Alexander’s Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1
Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas Ch 61; 25 ER 223
L J Carroll v L T Carroll [2016] NSWSC 390
Makrypodis v Eleisawy [2014] NSWSC 1429
Mijo Developments Pty Ltd v Royal Agnes Waters Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 199
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
O’Connor v O’Connor [2018] NSWCA 214
Re Pile’s Caveats (1981) Qd R 81
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] 1 All ER 378
Surfers Paradise Investments Pty Ltd v United Investments Pty Ltd [1997] QSC 179
Sze Tu v Lowe [2014] NSWCA 462; (2014) 89 NSWLR 317
Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544
Wickham Developments Ltd v Parker (unreported SC of Qld, No 1172 of 1994, Mackenzie J)

Texts Cited:
H. Ford, W. A. Lee et al, Principles of the Law of Trusts (Thomson, subscription service)
J. D. Heydon, M. J. Leeming and P. G. Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2015)
P.…

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 Mayrin DM Pty Ltd v Kaiyu Deng 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: [2019] NSWSC 1552
Decision Date: 31 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mayrin DM Pty Ltd v Kaiyu Deng was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mayrin DM Pty Ltd, sought to extend a caveat on property owned by the defendant, Kaiyu Deng. The dispute centred around the nature of the caveatable interest claimed by the plaintiff and whether it was sufficiently particularised in the caveat. The plaintiff argued that it held a beneficial interest in trust, arising from the defendant's breach of fiduciary, contractual, and other duties, which was not yet declared by a court. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had not sufficiently articulated the basis of the claimed interest and that the description of the interest as a "beneficial interest in trust" did not meet the formal requirements of a caveat.

The court was required to decide whether a constructive trust, which had not yet been declared by a court, constituted a caveatable interest. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had complied with the formal requirements for a caveat by sufficiently articulating the particulars of the estate or interest claimed. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the description of the interest as a "beneficial interest in trust" arising from the defendant's breaches was sufficient, or if it should have been described more specifically as a "constructive trust".

The court held that a constructive trust, which had not yet been declared by a court, did not constitute a caveatable interest. It further found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently particularised the basis of the claimed interest. The description of the interest as a "beneficial interest in trust" arising from the defendant's breaches was deemed insufficient as it did not specifically mention a "constructive trust". The court emphasised that the particulars of a claimed interest must be clearly and precisely stated to comply with the formal requirements of a caveat. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for an extension of the caveat was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court determined that the plaintiff's claimed interest did not meet the criteria for a caveatable interest and was not sufficiently particularised. The plaintiff's application for an extension of the caveat was dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding the substantive claim for a constructive trust.

Orders