Stankovic v Namul Pty Limited

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stankovic v Namul Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 276

Hearing dates:

27 August 2013

Decision date:

27 August 2013

Before:

Meagher JA, Barrett JA, Tobias AJA

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

APPEAL - no question of general principle arising - no ground of appeal shown - respondent's title to land unimpeachable - short form reasons appropriate

Legislation Cited:

Real Property Act 1900, s 42
Supreme Court Act 1970, s 45(4)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1970, rule 51.55

Cases Cited:

Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council (No 3) [2012] FCA 523

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Milovan Stankovic (Appellant)
Namul Pty Limited (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented Appellant
M W Sneddon/C A Alexander (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented Appellant
McLaughlin & Riordan (Respondent)

File Number(s):

CA2013/50343; CA2013/99410

 Decision under appeal 

Citation:

Namul Pty Ltd v Milovan Stankovic [2013] NSWSC 115

Date of Decision:

2013-02-14 00:00:00

Before:

Rein J

File Number(s):

SC 2013/34311

Judgment

1. THE COURT: The Court is of the clear and unanimous opinion that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

1. It is also of the clear and unanimous opinion that the case is one in which no question of general principle arises and the power under s 45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and rule 51.55 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 to give reasons in short form should be exercised.

1. The appellant was formerly one of two registered proprietors of land at Kellyville, the other being his then wife. They held as tenants in common. In May 2009, the appellant became a bankrupt upon the making of a sequestration order by the Federal Magistrates Court. Mr Van der Velde and Mr Cronan were appointed trustees of his bankrupt estate. In June 2010, the Family Court of Australia made orders appointing Mr Van der Velde, Mr Cronan and the appellant's wife as trustees for sale of the Kellyville property. Those three persons had previously become registered as proprietors of the land under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1900.

1. The land was in due course submitted for sale by auction. A contract for sale was entered into on 14 September 2010 between the three registered proprietors as vendors and Eric Newham Holdings Pty Ltd as purchaser for a price of $6,700,000. The contract was in due course completed by transfer and Eric Newham Holdings Pty Ltd became registered as proprietor under the Real Property Act.

1. The present registered proprietor under that Act is the respondent, Namul Pty Ltd, an associated company of Eric Newham Holdings Pty Ltd. It became…