Pindan Pty Ltd v Sunny's Redevelopment Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

PINDAN PTY LTD -v- SUNNY'S REDEVELOPMENT PTY LTD & ANOR [2001] WASC 104



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2001] WASC 104
Case No:CIV:1362/200104 APRIL 2001
Coram:MURRAY J30/04/01
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Operation of caveat extended pending establishment of secured fund
PDF Version
Parties:PINDAN PTY LTD (ACN 009 009 072)
SUNNY'S REDEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 079 804 747)
THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Catchwords:

Caveat
Caveat lodged pursuant to a building contract providing caveatable interest by way of charge granted by the owner to the builder to secure unpaid monies under the contract
Compromise agreement made
Dispute over money properly payable under compromise and building contract
Caveatable interest maintained
Whether caveat should be extended pending resolution of dispute
Whether balance of convenience favours removal of caveat conditioned upon establishment of fund to secure disputed sum
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C

Case References:

Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331
Hampton Gold Mining Areas Ltd v Metals Exploration Ltd (1995) 17 WAR 30
Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271

Beca Developments Pty Ltd v Idameneo (No 92) Pty Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 459
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Schierholter [1981] VR 292
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Garon Pty Ltd and Ors [1999] WASC 170
Commonwealth Bank v Amadio (1982-1983) 151 CLR 447
Gibson v Co-ordinated Building Services Pty Ltd (1989) 4 BPR 9630
Griffith v Hodge (1979) 2 BPR 9474
Johnstone v Commerce Consolidated Ltd [1976] VR 463
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281
Lam v Ausintel Investments Pty Ltd (1989) 97 FLR 458
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings (1998) 196 CLR 494
Martyn v Glennan [1979] 2 NSWLR 234
Re Burman's Caveat [1994] 1 Qd R 123
Rising Developments Pty Ltd v Hoskins (1996) 39 NSWLR 157
Riverlate Properties Pty Ltd v Paul [1975] Ch 133
Taylor v Johnson (1981-1982) 151 CLR 422
Thomas Bates Ltd v Wyndham's Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 505
Venios v Machon (12986) 3 BCL 171
Wright v Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corporation (Australia) Ltd [1993] 1 VR 502

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : PINDAN PTY LTD -v- SUNNY'S REDEVELOPMENT PTY LTD & ANOR [2001] WASC 104 CORAM : MURRAY J HEARD : 04 APRIL 2001 DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2001 FILE NO/S : CIV 1362 of 2001 BETWEEN : PINDAN PTY LTD (ACN 009 009 072)
    Plaintiff

    AND

    SUNNY'S REDEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 079 804 747)
    First Defendant

    THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
    Second Defendant



Catchwords:

Caveat - Caveat lodged pursuant to a building contract providing caveatable interest by way of charge granted by the owner to the builder to secure unpaid monies under the contract - Compromise agreement made - Dispute over money properly payable under compromise…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pindan Pty Ltd v Sunny's Redevelopment Pty Ltd 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
[2001] WASC 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pindan Pty Ltd v Sunny's Redevelopment Pty Ltd, heard by Murray J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, concerns a dispute over a caveat lodged by Pindan Pty Ltd over certain strata lots. The dispute revolves around the balance of convenience and the maintenance of a secured fund. Pindan, the plaintiff, lodged a caveat over the land to prevent dealing in the land absolutely, as it had a caveatable interest under the building contract with Sunny's Redevelopment Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute between the parties is over the amount of money owed under the compromise agreement made between the parties. The court was required to decide whether the caveat should be extended pending the resolution of the dispute and whether the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat, conditional upon the establishment of a fund to secure the disputed sum.

The court held that the demonstration of a caveatable interest would ordinarily secure the extension of the operation of the caveat unless it appeared to be clear that it could be removed without sacrificing the security provided by the caveat. In this case, the court found that the creation of a special trust account, as proposed by the defendant, would provide adequate security as an alternative to reliance upon the charge under the building contract. Therefore, the court decided to extend the operation of the caveat until the fund was established. Upon presentation of evidence to that effect to the second defendant, the caveat could be discharged in respect of the whole of the land presently covered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.