Legal Research
Cases
Printy v Provident Capital Ltd

Printy v Provident Capital Ltd

Case [2007] NSWSC 287 30 March 2007

Mortgages & Security Interests

Admissibility of Evidence

Relief Claimed

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2007) NSW ConvR 56-180

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Printy v Provident Capital Limited & Anor [2007] NSWSC 287

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 March 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

DECISION: THE CLAIM IN RELATION TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE: (1) Order as sought against the first defendant in para 1 of the relief claimed in the statement of claim filed on 12 December 2005; (2) Order that the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in respect of this claim; (3) Order refusing the relief claimed in the alternative against the second defendant as to the first mortgage; (4) Order that the plaintiff pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings in respect of this alternative claim; (5) I direct that the parties prepare short minutes expressing the sum payable pursuant to order 1. THE CLAIM IN RELATION TO THE SECOND MORTGAGE: (6) Order as sought against the second defendant in para 2 of the relief claimed in the statement of claim filed 12 December 2005; (7) Order that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in respect of this claim; (8) I direct that the parties prepare short minutes expressing the sum payable pursuant to order 6; (9) The matter is to be relisted on 5 April 2007 to receive the required short minutes and to make appropriate orders to give effect to them.

LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CASES CITED: Almeida v Universal Dye Works Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWCA 156
Bullock v London General Omnibus Co. (1907) 1 KB 264
Challenger Managed Investments Limited & Anor v Direct Money Corporation Pty Limited & Ors (2003) 59 NSWLR 452
Gould v Vaggelas (1983-85) 157 CLR 215
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited & Anor v Tsai (2004) 12 BPR 22,281
PT Limited v Maradona (1992) 25 NSWLR 643
Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors v Palmer [2005] NSWCA 140
Small v Tomassetti (2001) 12 BPR 22,253
Steppke v National Capital Development Commission (1978) 21 ACTR 23

PARTIES: James Richard Printy (Plaintiff)
Provident Capital Limited (1st Defendant)
Registrar General of New South Wales (2nd Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20430/05

COUNSEL: I. Wales SC (Plaintiff)
P. Taylor SC (1st Defendant)
P. Walsh (2nd Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Lyndon Sayer-Jones & Associates (Plaintiff)
Bersten Pain Pty Limited (1st Defendant)
K. Hall (2nd Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Friday 30 March 2007

20430/05 JAMES RICHARD PRINTY v PROVIDENT CAPITAL LIMITED & ANOR
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, James Richard Printy, sues the first defendant, Provident Capital Limited, and the second defendant, the Registrar General, seeking the recovery of money after the sale of property he claimed to have owned at 33 Canoelands Road, Canoelands. The first defendant recovered a judgment for possession of that property in proceedings in this court following default under a mortgage, and it exercised its power of…

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.

Continue reading Printy v Provident Capital Ltd

Details

AGLC: Printy v Provident Capital Ltd [2007] NSWSC 287
Case: [2007] NSWSC 287
Decision Date: 30 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Printy, the plaintiff, and Provident Capital Ltd, the defendant, in a dispute concerning a mortgage. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Printy sought to challenge the enforceability of a mortgage held by Provident Capital Ltd over his property, arguing that it was not properly registered under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). The plaintiff also claimed relief under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to have the mortgage set aside or for the court to grant an order for its rectification.

The court was tasked with determining whether the mortgage was validly registered and if the plaintiff's claims under the Real Property Act and the Civil Procedure Rules were substantiated. It was necessary to examine the procedural steps taken by Provident Capital Ltd in registering the mortgage and to assess whether any statutory requirements had been overlooked or incorrectly applied. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had a legitimate basis to claim relief under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court found that the mortgage had been properly registered and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims under the Real Property Act or the Civil Procedure Rules. The judge held that the statutory requirements for registration were satisfied and that there was no procedural defect that would invalidate the mortgage. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for relief was dismissed, and the mortgage remained enforceable against the property.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The mortgage held by Provident Capital Ltd remained valid and enforceable against Printy's property.

Orders