Meng v Pan

[2006] NSWSC 774

CITATION:	Meng v Pan [2006] NSWSC 774
HEARING DATE(S):	28/07/06
JUDGMENT DATE :	28 July 2006
JURISDICTION:	Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF:	White J
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	07/28/2006
DECISION:	Summons dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – Caveats – Plaintiff lodged caveat in respect of land owned by company in which he was 50 per cent shareholder – Caveat lapsed – Plaintiff sought to lodge further caveat – Registrar-General gave notice that further caveat in breach of s 74O Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) – Whether plaintiff entitled to leave to lodge further caveat – Where plaintiff’s only interest is as shareholder of company which owns land – No caveatable interest shown – Plaintiff’s summons dismissed.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
PARTIES:	Wei Hong Meng v Biguang Pan
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 4008/06
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: P Ryan Defendant: Ex parte
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: Accentro Legal Solicitors Defendant: N/A

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
DUTY JUDGE LIST

WHITE J

Friday, 28 July 2006

4008/06 Wei Hong Meng v Biguang Pan

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for short service of a notice of motion and summons. The summons seeks an order pursuant to s 74O of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) for leave to the plaintiff to lodge a further caveat in respect of land in folio identifier 1/521192. The notice of motion seeks orders for short service of the summons. Counsel has also moved this morning ex parte for an order that the operation of an existing caveat lodged on the title of the property be extended until Friday, 4 August 2006.

2 In his affidavit, the plaintiff deposes to being a 50 percent shareholder in the company which is the registered proprietor of the property and to having been purportedly removed as a director of the company. He deposes that in September last year he "lodged caveats on the properties owned by [the company] to protect my shareholding and investments". It appears that a lapsing notice was served in April 2006 and the caveat, in due course, lapsed.

3 A further caveat was lodged on or about 30 June 2006 in which the plaintiff describes the claimed estate or interest in the land in the following terms:

“ Caveator is 50 percent shareholder and director of registered proprietary company. ASIC records have been illegally changed. ”

4 The Registrar-General has given notice that as this caveat relies on substantially the same facts, and claims the same interest, as the previously lapsed caveat, its lodgement was in breach of s 74O of the Real Property Act and it will be removed in seven days unless there is a contrary order of this court.

5 It is plain that the matters relied upon by the plaintiff as giving rise to an equitable interest in the land do not do so. At best, the plaintiff is a shareholder in the company which owns the land. It is trite that a shareholder does not have an equitable interest in the property of the company. No caveatable interest is shown.

6 I think the only appropriate order is the summons be dismissed. I so order.

******