Psevdos v First Mortgage Company Home Loans Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of Psevdos v First Mortgage Company Home Loans Pty Ltd involved the appellant, who was a mortgagor, challenging the actions of the respondent, the mortgagee, in relation to a property located at 108 South Terrace, Adelaide. The primary dispute centred on the nature of the appellant's interest in the property, with the appellant asserting that he held title as trustee for the Orio Investment Trust, rather than as a tenant in common with the other mortgagors. This dispute was significant because if the appellant held the property as trustee, it would not form part of his personal estate that vested in the trustee in bankruptcy following a sequestration order made in June 2016.

The legal issues before the court included the proper procedure for the respondent to follow when entering and taking possession of the property and selling it, the validity of the respondent's reliance on the appellant's bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the Master's decisions in the substantive proceedings. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Master erred in dismissing the respondent's application to dispense with the notice requirement under s 55A(1) of the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA), and whether the Master correctly granted the respondent's application under s 191(1)(d) of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) to remove the caveat placed by the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's interlocutory applications and whether they should have been allowed.

The court found that the Master's decisions were correct. The respondent had initially erred in relying on the appellant's bankruptcy, but had subsequently sought to remedy this by applying to dispense with the notice requirement and to remove the caveat. The Master's dismissal of the former application and grant of the latter were upheld, as the appellant had not provided a sufficient reason for reopening the matter, particularly given that the property had already been sold and settlement had occurred. The court also held that the appeal was an inappropriate forum for the appellant to seek a declaration binding on the trustee in bankruptcy regarding the beneficial ownership of the property. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no further orders were made.