Porters v Cessnock City Council

Porters, as the purchasers, filed an application against Cessnock City Council, the council, seeking to enforce an equitable charge over the estate of the deceased vendor. The dispute centred around the enforceability of a purchaser's lien over the land, where the vendor had died before completing the sale, and no legal personal representative or contactable beneficiaries were available. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the court could proceed with the matter in the absence of a legal personal representative and whether the purchaser could claim an interest in the proceeds of the land sale. The court was also required to consider the equitable maxim "equity regards as done that which ought to be done" and the enforcement of contracts for the sale of land against estate assets, despite the doctrine of conversion in deceased estates.

The primary legal issues involved the availability of a purchaser's lien when the vendor dies before completing the sale, the applicability of the equitable maxim, and the court's jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in the absence of a legal personal representative. The court had to determine whether the purchaser could enforce the equitable charge over the deceased vendor's estate and if the doctrine of conversion in deceased estates should apply to prevent the enforcement of the contract.

The court held that the doctrine of conversion in deceased estates did not prevent the enforcement of the contract for the sale of land. The court could proceed with the matter in the absence of a legal personal representative if strenuous efforts had been made to identify and contact the beneficiaries. The court found that the purchaser had made significant efforts to contact the beneficiaries and, in the absence of a legal personal representative, the court could proceed with the matter. The court also applied the equitable maxim "equity regards as done that which ought to be done" and found that the purchaser was entitled to an interest in the proceeds of the land sale.

The court ordered that the purchaser was entitled to an equitable charge over the land, and the proceeds of the sale would be applied to satisfy the purchaser's claim. The court also ordered that the purchaser's lien was enforceable against the estate of the deceased vendor, and the purchaser was entitled to an interest in the proceeds of the land sale.