Legal Research
Cases
Seyffer v Adamson

Seyffer v Adamson

Case [2000] NSWSC 1219 19 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Seyffer v Adamson & anor [2000] NSWSC 1219

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3420/00

HEARING DATE(S): 19 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 December 2000

PARTIES :

Michael Alan Seyffer (Plaintiff)
Jennifer Frances Adamson (First Defendant)
Mark Ross Adamson (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master McLaughlin

COUNSEL : P. L. G. Brereton SC and M. J. Leeming (Plaintiff)
J. van Aalst (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Speed and Stracey, Commercial Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Hardings Lawyers (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Practice - Summary dismissal - Whether reasonable cause of action is disclosed - Possessory title - Asserted agreement between parties - Defendants acquire title by transfer from registered proprietor - Whether Plaintiff was a trespasser and his claim is grounded in an illegality - Effect of any such illegality upon entitlement of Plaintiff to invoke intervention by a Court of Equity - Estoppel - Feeding the estoppel - Whether equity should intervene to prevent Defendants from relying upon their strict legal rights - Possessory title can be acquired only of a whole parcle of land - Whether claim of Plaintiff is in respect to only one half of a whole parcel of land

LEGISLATION CITED: Real Property Act 1900, section 45D
Supreme Court Rules, Part 13 rule 5

CASES CITED: General Steel Industries Inc. v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
United Dominions Corporation Limited v Brian Pty Limited (1985) 157 CLR 1
Banner Homes Group PLC v Luff Developments Limited [2000] 2 WLR 772
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341; 98 ER 1120
Tinsley v Milligan (1994) 1 AC 340
The Juliana (1822) 2 Dods 504; 165 ER 1560
Central London Property Trust Limited v High Trees House Limited [1974] KB 130
Legione v Hately (1983) 152 CLR 406
Verwayen v The Commonwealth (1990) 170 CLR 394
Spark v Whale Three Minute Car Wash (Cremorne Junction) Pty Limited (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 1087
Muschinski v Dodd (1985) 160 CLR 583
Guimelli v Guimelli (1999) 196 CLR 101

DECISION: See paragraph 54

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
MASTER McLAUGHLIN
Tuesday, 19 December 2000
3420/00 MICHAEL ALAN SEYFFER -v- JENNIFER FRANCES ADAMSON and ANOR
JUDGMENT
1 MASTER: There is presently before the Court a notice of motion filed on 6 September 2000 on behalf of the First and Second Defendants, Jennifer Frances Adamson and Mark Roth Adamson. By that notice of motion an order is sought that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Part 13 rule 5(1) of the Supreme Court Rules. (The notice of motion states that that relief will be sought by the Plaintiff: I assume that statement to be an error, and that it is intended that that relief will be sought by the First and Second Defendants.) 2 The substantive proceedings were instituted by statement of claim filed by the Plaintiff Michael Alan Seyffer on 1 August 2000. Subsequently an amended statement of claim was filed on 19 October 2000. 3 The proceedings relate to a strip of land (to which I shall, consonant…

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 Seyffer v Adamson

Details

AGLC: Seyffer v Adamson [2000] NSWSC 1219
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1219
Decision Date: 19 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Seyffer v Adamson, the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from exercising their legal rights over a parcel of land. The defendants had acquired the title to the property through a transfer from the registered proprietor. The plaintiff argued that an agreement existed between the parties, giving him a reasonable cause of action. However, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had trespassed onto the land and that his claim was grounded in an illegality. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the alleged illegality barred his entitlement to equitable relief. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendants' strict legal rights could be estopped and whether the plaintiff's claim was limited to only one half of the whole parcel of land.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the alleged illegality precluded him from seeking equitable relief. The court examined the nature of the agreement between the parties and whether it provided the plaintiff with a sufficient basis for his claim. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the effect of any illegality on the plaintiff's entitlement to invoke the intervention of a court of equity. The court also had to consider whether the defendants could be estopped from relying on their strict legal rights and whether the plaintiff's claim was limited to only one half of the whole parcel of land.

The court found that the plaintiff had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The agreement between the parties did not provide a sufficient basis for the plaintiff's claim, and the court determined that the alleged illegality precluded him from seeking equitable relief. The court held that the defendants were not estopped from relying on their strict legal rights, and that the plaintiff's claim was limited to only one half of the whole parcel of land. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be summarily dismissed, and that the defendants were not liable to pay the plaintiff's costs. The court held that the plaintiff had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and that the alleged illegality precluded him from seeking equitable relief. The court also found that the defendants could not be estopped from relying on their strict legal rights, and that the plaintiff's claim was limited to only one half of the whole parcel of land.

Orders