SMITH & ANOR -v- PARFIT & ORS [2005] WASC 250
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASC 250 | |
| 15/11/2005 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1593/2005 | 24 OCTOBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 25/10/05 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Caveat and injunction extended | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PHILIP STEPHEN SMITH DOROTHY ANNE SMITH CHRISTOPHER PARFIT LIEN DIEP HONG REGISTRAR OF TITLES LOUISE JACQUELINE ATKINSON MICHAEL SIMEON ARNDT ANGELA LEAH ARNDT ANDREW RAYMOND NEATE SALLY MARIE LARDER CHRISTINE ANN BLONDEL DAVID ROBIN WATT GARY JOHN SMITH ELIZABETH FLORENCE SMITH ALBERT LESLIE MORGAN NICHOLAS JOHN HARRADINE LISA JAYNE HARRADINE |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application for extension of caveat and an interlocutory injunction Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Custom Credit Corp Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42 Total Marine Services Pty Ltd v Waller [2002] WASC 8 A v Hayden (No 1) (1984) 56 ALR 73 Adderley v Dixon (1824) 1 Sim & St 607 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 Carr v J A Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 327 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 Doradel Holdings Pty Ltd v Tiger Kart Club Inc [2003] WASC 221 Evans Marshall & Co Ltd v Bertola SA [1973] 1 WLR 349 Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670 Helm Maritime Corp v Coplex Resources NL [1999] WASC 21 Kirk Contractors Pty Ltd v Lasnom Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 950262; 31 May 1995 Kuper v Keywest Constructions Pty Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 419 Mott v Mount Edon Goldmines (Australia) Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 319 State Transport Authority v Apex Quarries Ltd [1988] VR 187 Treweeke v Wolseley Road Pty Ltd (1973) 128 CLR 274 Tropical Traders Ltd v Goonan (1964) 111 CLR 41 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- DOROTHY ANNE SMITH
Plaintiffs
AND
CHRISTOPHER PARFIT
LIEN DIEP HONG
First Defendants
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant
(Page 2)
FILE NO/S : CIV 1596 of 2005 MATTER : application pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 in relation to Lot 7 on Strata Plan 45906
BETWEEN : LOUISE JACQUELINE ATKINSON
- Plaintiff
AND
CHRISTOPHER PARFIT
LIEN DIEP HONG
First Defendants
REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant
BETWEEN : MICHAEL SIMEON ARNDT
- ANGELA LEAH ARNDT
Plaintiffs
AND
CHRISTOPHER PARFIT
LIEN DIEP…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Smith v Parfit 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2005] WASC 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Smith v Parfit involved multiple actions concerning the purchase of units on a property known as Strata Plan 45906. The plaintiffs in each action were purchasers who had entered into preliminary agreements to buy units "off the plan" before the units were constructed and before the issue of individual strata titles. The defendants were the registered proprietors of the property and were responsible for the development and financing of the property. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiffs had a caveatable interest in the units, which would justify the extension of caveats and interlocutory injunctions preventing the defendants from leasing the units.
The court considered the contractual terms between the parties, particularly the preliminary agreements and the conditions precedent to the execution of formal contracts. The preliminary agreements included a condition that the purchase was subject to finance approval, and the plaintiffs failed to obtain finance by the specified deadline. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the plaintiffs' contracts and whether the defendants had the right to terminate the agreements. The court also noted that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as leasing the units would deprive them of the new property they had contracted to purchase.
Based on these findings, the court extended both the caveats and the interlocutory injunctions on the condition that the plaintiffs initiate proceedings for specific performance within seven days and apply to have the matter entered into the expedited list within seven days of the defendants filing an appearance. This would ensure a prompt resolution of the dispute, which was in the interest of all parties, particularly the defendants who were in default under their loan agreement with Bendigo Bank.
The court considered the contractual terms between the parties, particularly the preliminary agreements and the conditions precedent to the execution of formal contracts. The preliminary agreements included a condition that the purchase was subject to finance approval, and the plaintiffs failed to obtain finance by the specified deadline. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the plaintiffs' contracts and whether the defendants had the right to terminate the agreements. The court also noted that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as leasing the units would deprive them of the new property they had contracted to purchase.
Based on these findings, the court extended both the caveats and the interlocutory injunctions on the condition that the plaintiffs initiate proceedings for specific performance within seven days and apply to have the matter entered into the expedited list within seven days of the defendants filing an appearance. This would ensure a prompt resolution of the dispute, which was in the interest of all parties, particularly the defendants who were in default under their loan agreement with Bendigo Bank.
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.