Smith v Parfit

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

SMITH & ANOR -v- PARFIT & ORS [2005] WASC 250



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASC 250
15/11/2005
Case No:CIV:1593/200524 OCTOBER 2005
Coram:MASTER SANDERSON25/10/05
17Judgment 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
CITATION : SMITH & ANOR -v- PARFIT & ORS [2005] WASC 250 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 24 OCTOBER 2005 DELIVERED : 25 OCTOBER 2005 PUBLISHED : 15 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 1593 of 2005 MATTER : application pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 in relation to Lot 14 on Strata Plan 45906 BETWEEN : PHILIP STEPHEN SMITH
    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
FILE NO/S : CIV 1597 of 2005 MATTER : application pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 in relation to Lot 13 on Strata Plan 45906

BETWEEN : MICHAEL SIMEON ARNDT
    ANGELA LEAH ARNDT
    Plaintiffs

    AND

    CHRISTOPHER PARFIT
    LIEN DIEP…
CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[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.

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.