Re Westpac Banking Corporation

In this matter, the court was required to determine which of two applicants was entitled to the proceeds of a surplus from the sale of a property that had been subject to a mortgage. The first applicant, a bank, had registered a caveat over the property in reliance on a deed signed by the directors and secretary of a company. The second applicant claimed a charge over the property under a different deed. The dispute arose as the registered proprietors of the property were not named as parties to the deeds, raising questions about their validity. The court had to decide whether the registered proprietors were parties to the deeds, the proper construction of the deeds, and the priority between the competing interests.

The court considered the deeds and the circumstances surrounding their execution. The court found that despite the ambiguity in the deeds, the registered proprietors were parties to the deeds because they were guaranteed by the debtor. The court also found that the deeds allowed the first applicant to lodge a caveat over the property and create a charge over the property by lodging a caveat. However, the court noted that the issue of priority between the two competing interests had not been determined, and both notices of motion would need to be relisted to allow for the balance of issues to be determined.

The court did not make a final determination of the competing claims of the two applicants. Instead, the court ordered that the hearing of both notices of motion be relisted to allow for the balance of issues to be determined. The court held that the first applicant was entitled to lodge a caveat over the property and create a charge over the property by lodging a caveat, but the issue of priority between the two competing interests had not been determined. The court also found that the registered proprietors were parties to the deeds despite the ambiguity in the deeds, and the deeds allowed for the creation of a charge over the property.

The court did not make any final orders in this matter. Instead, the court ordered that the hearing of both notices of motion be relisted to allow for the balance of issues to be determined. The court held that the first applicant was entitled to lodge a caveat over the property and create a charge over the property by lodging a caveat, but the issue of priority between the two competing interests had not been determined. The court also found that the registered proprietors were parties to the deeds despite the ambiguity in the deeds, and the deeds allowed for the creation of a charge over the property.