Legal Research
Cases
Reindel v Confreight Pty Ltd (No 2)

Reindel v Confreight Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied

Case Copied 8 August 2022 80 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2021 02659

GLENN REINDEL & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
CONFREIGHT PTY LTD (ACN 005 729 457) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

S ECI 2021 03051

CONFREIGHT PTY LTD (A.C.N. 005 729 457) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
GLENN REINDEL & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 and 19 October 2021; further written submissions filed on 8 April 2022 and 22 April 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Reindel & Ors v Confreight Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 442

---

CAVEATS – Application pursuant to s 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) – Whether there is a prima facie case to support the caveats – BCA Asset Management Group Pty Ltd v Sand Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 177 referred to and applied – Indefeasible title by reason of s 42 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) – Fraud exception to indefeasibility – Claim of fraud does not confer a caveatable interest – Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 – Claim of implied, resulting or constructive trust – McNab v Graham (2017) 53 VR 311 – In personam claim not capable of supporting a caveat – Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672 applied – Order for removal of caveats.

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – Alleged transfer of properties from unit trust in breach of trust – Application to restrain defendants from dealing with property said to have been acquired in breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty – Prima facie case established – Potential injustice to parties – Real risk assets will be dissipated – Injunction may be granted despite questions of standing where other requirements for granting an injunction are met – Injunction granted where a real connection between the relief sought and the final relief sought, where balance of convenience favours granting the injunction and there is a real risk of injustice if the injunction is not granted.

---

APPEARANCES - S ECI 2021 02659:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First and Third Plaintiffs	Mr I R Jones QC with Mr J Lipinski	William Partners (Mills Oakley from 9 February 2022)
For the Second Plaintiff	Ms G A Costello QC	Kabo Lawyers
For the First and Second Defendants	Mr V A Morfuni QC	Dominic Esposito Solicitors

APPEARANCES - S ECI 2021 03051:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr V A Morfuni QC	Dominic Esposito Solicitors
For the First, Third, Sixth and Seventh Defendants	Mr I R Jones QC with Mr J Lipinski	William Partners (Mills Oakley from 9 February 2022)*
For the Second Defendant	Ms G A Costello QC	Kabo Lawyers
For the Fourth Defendant	No appearance
For the Fifth Defendant	No appearance

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reindel v Confreight Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2022] VSC 442
Decision Date: 8 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reindel v Confreight Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute over the validity of caveats entered by the plaintiff, Reindel, against several properties. The defendants, Confreight Pty Ltd, sought to remove the caveats on the grounds that Reindel did not have a prima facie case. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Reindel argued that the caveats were necessary to protect his interests in the properties, which were allegedly transferred in breach of trust by Confreight. The legal issues before the court were whether Reindel had established a prima facie case to support the caveats, and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the defendants from dealing with the properties.

The court examined the nature of the claims made by Reindel. It concluded that Reindel's claim of fraud did not confer a caveatable interest, as established in BCA Asset Management Group Pty Ltd v Sand Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 177. The court also found that Reindel's claim of an implied, resulting or constructive trust did not provide a basis for the caveats, as per the reasoning in Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 and McNab v Graham (2017) 53 VR 311. Additionally, the court held that an in personam claim, which seeks a remedy against a specific person rather than their property, was not capable of supporting a caveat. This was consistent with the decision in Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd v Trepan Investments Pty Ltd [1994] 1 VR 672. Based on these findings, the court concluded that Reindel had not established a prima facie case for the caveats, and ordered their removal.

The court also addressed the application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from dealing with the properties. It found that Reindel had established a prima facie case for an injunction, as there was a real risk that the assets would be dissipated if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that an injunction may be granted despite questions of standing, if the other requirements for granting an injunction were met. In this case, the court found that there was a real connection between the relief sought and the final relief sought, the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and there was a real risk of injustice if the injunction was not granted. Consequently, the court granted the injunction to prevent the defendants from dealing with the properties.

The final orders of the court were that the caveats entered by Reindel against the properties were removed, and an interlocutory injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from dealing with the properties.

Orders