Roberts Gray Pty Ltd v Brunner

In the case of Roberts Gray Pty Ltd v Brunner, the plaintiff, Roberts Gray, sought to establish priority of their interest over two other parties who had prior interests in a property. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff held a registered mortgage over the property, but this mortgage was junior to both an unregistered prior mortgage held by the first defendant, and an equitable charge held by the second defendant. The third defendant claimed to be subrogated to the first defendant's mortgage.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had notice of the first defendant's prior equitable interest, and if such notice was fatal to their claim for priority. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the first defendant's conduct disentitled them from claiming priority over the plaintiff's interest, and whether the third defendant was entitled to be subrogated to the first defendant's mortgage. The court also needed to determine if the plaintiff should be permitted to amend their caveat, and whether a trustee should be appointed for the sale of the land.

The court examined the principles set out in Heid v Reliance Finance Corporation and Moffett v Dillon, and found that the plaintiff had constructive notice of the first defendant's prior interest due to the registration of their own mortgage. However, the court held that this notice was not fatal to the plaintiff's claim for priority, as the first defendant's conduct did not disentitle them from claiming priority. The court also found that the third defendant was not entitled to be subrogated to the first defendant's mortgage. Finally, the court considered the application for leave to amend the caveat, and whether a trustee should be appointed for the sale of the land under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic).

The court ultimately granted the plaintiff priority over the first defendant's interest, but not over the second defendant's equitable charge. The court denied the third defendant's claim for subrogation, and refused leave to amend the caveat. The court did not appoint a trustee for the sale of the land.