Legal Research
Cases
Sivanathan v Tanikawa and Registrar of Titles

Sivanathan v Tanikawa and Registrar of Titles

Case [2011] VCC 1411

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: Sivanathan v Tanikawa and Registrar of Titles [2011] VCC 1411
Case: [2011] VCC 1411
Decision Date: 24 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Sivanathan v Tanikawa and Registrar of Titles [2011] VCC 1411

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 282
Citation 1

…uestion arising in this case is whether or not the Court has the power to amend the Caveat. 27 In Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] VSC 282, Dixon J, at paragraph 65, said as follows: “It remains the fact that the power expressed in s 90(3) is wide and unqualified. As Macaulay J concluded…
Piroshenko v Grojsman [2010] VSC 240
Citation 2

…24 In Piroshenko v Grojsman & Ors [2010] VSC 240, at paragraph 7, Warren CJ also said: “Caveats under the Torrens system are treated by the courts as analogous to applications for interlocutory injunctive relief. Insofar as their registration is an administrative act, it is when application is made for their remo…
Bernstein v Georgakakis [2010] VSC 52
Citation 3

…dstraw . [3] See also Theresa Bernstein v Georgakakis & Anor .[4] [1] [1980] AC 331 [2] [1982] QDR 458, 464-5 [3] ( supra ) at paragraph 30 [4] [2010] VSC 52…
Schmidt v 28 Myola Street Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 343
Citation 4

…23 In Schmidt v 28 Myola Street (2006) 14 VR 447, at 457, Warren CJ said: “… the proper exercise of the discretion under s 90(3) will involve considering: in which party’s favour the balance of convenience lies; whether there is a serious question to be tried; and whether the caveator claims an interest wider than…
S & D International Pty Ltd (in liq) v Malhotra [2006] VSC 280
Citation 5

…29 In S & D International Pty Ltd (in liq) v Malhotra & The Registrar of Titles [2006] VSC 280, Gillard J found that he had the power to amend the grounds claimed in the caveat. At paragraph 16, he said: “In Midwarren Estates v Retek, [6] Menhennitt J was of the view that s 90(3) did not authorise an amendment wh…
Goldstraw v Goldstraw [2002] VSC 491
Citation 6

…22 In Goldstraw v Goldstraw [2002] VSC 491, at paragraph 30, Dodds-Streeton J summarised the jurisdiction in these terms: “S90(3) is in the nature of a summary procedure analogous to the determination of interlocutory injunctions. The Court's power under s90(3) is discretionary. In that context, it is recognised…

AI Chat coming soon