NEWSCOPE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD -v- MANERA & ORS [2006] WASC 220

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 220
Case No:	CIV:1594/2006	Heard:	13 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	29/09/06
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Caveat extended
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NEWSCOPE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 111 913 538) PETER ALBERT MANERA ADRIANA LAURA MANERA REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Contract Misdescription in name of company Whether no contract Whether caveatable interest
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)
Case References:	Black v Smallwood (1966) 117 CLR 52 Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42 F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd v Baxter [1970] Ch 85 Ford v Young (1882) 3 ALT 85 Kingstream Steel Ltd v Stemcor UK Ltd [2001] WASCA 138 Mander Pty Ltd v Clements [2005] WASCA 67; (2005) 30 WAR 46 National Education Advancement Programs (NEAP) Pty Ltd v Ashton (1995) 14 ACLC 30 Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271 Burns v Bayliss [2006] WASC 102 Expectation Pty Ltd v Pinnacle VRB Ltd [2002] WASCA 160 Halse v Embling, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970734; 22 December 1997 Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286 Phillips Fox (a firm) v West gold Resources NL [2000] WASCA 85 Samampow v Mercator Property Consultants Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 64 SDS Corp Ltd v Pasdonnay Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 26

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : NEWSCOPE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD -v- MANERA & ORS [2006] WASC 220 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 13 SEPTEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 29 SEPTEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 1594 of 2006 BETWEEN : NEWSCOPE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 111 913 538)

Plaintiff

AND

PETER ALBERT MANERA

ADRIANA LAURA MANERA

First Defendants

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Misdescription in name of company - Whether no contract - Whether caveatable interest

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Caveat extended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr J C Hammond

First Defendants : Ms C H Thompson

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Hammond Worthington

First Defendants : Martella & Co

Second Defendant : No appearance

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

Black v Smallwood (1966) 117 CLR 52
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd v Baxter [1970] Ch 85
Ford v Young (1882) 3 ALT 85
Kingstream Steel Ltd v Stemcor UK Ltd [2001] WASCA 138
Mander Pty Ltd v Clements [2005] WASCA 67; (2005) 30 WAR 46
National Education Advancement Programs (NEAP) Pty Ltd v Ashton (1995) 14 ACLC 30
Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271

Case(s) also cited:

Burns v Bayliss [2006] WASC 102
Expectation Pty Ltd v Pinnacle VRB Ltd [2002] WASCA 160
Halse v Embling, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970734; 22 December 1997
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising…

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 Newscope Investments Pty Ltd v Manera 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: [2006] WASC 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newscope Investments Pty Ltd v Manera [2006] WASC 220 is an application to extend a caveat under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA). The plaintiff, Newscope Investments Pty Ltd, sought to purchase two blocks of land from the first defendants, Peter Albert Manera and Adriana Laura Manera. The central issue in this case was whether the contract for the purchase of the land was valid despite a misdescription of the buyer's name in the contract.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the contract was valid despite the misdescription of the buyer's name and whether the plaintiff had a caveatable interest. The court considered the authorities of Kingstream Steel Ltd v Stemcor UK Ltd [2001] WASCA 138 and Mander Pty Ltd v Clements [2005] WASCA 67; (2005) 30 WAR 46, which supported the plaintiff's position. The court also relied on the decision in F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd v Baxter [1970] Ch 85, which held that a misdescription of a vendor in a contract for the sale of land could be corrected if there was sufficient evidence to identify the vendor.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried that the plaintiff was indeed the purchaser, and the misdescription of the plaintiff's name did not defeat the contract. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had a caveatable interest and extended the caveat. The court ordered that the plaintiff take swift action to determine whether it had an interest in the properties.

Orders