Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur v Singh (No. 2)

Case [2013] NSWSC 1499


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur v Singh (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1499
Hearing dates:14 October 2013
Decision date: 14 October 2013
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:

1. Order 2 made on 17 September 2013 is varied to read as follows:

An order pursuant to section 15 of the Real Property Act 1900 that the Defendants be required to produce the Certificate of Titles on or before 22 October 2013 for the following properties:

i. the land and premises known as Unit 7, 33 Bowden Street, Harris Park in the State of New South Wales, being the whole of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 7/SP11723; and

ii. the land and premises known as 148 Aberglassyn Road, Rutherford in the State of New South Wales, being the whole of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 1822/1090379.

2. The amended order is to be served on the Defendants by 5pm on 15 October 2013.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - slip rule - where order made should have specified a date for the act to be performed - order varied
Legislation Cited: Real Property Act 1900
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd v Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd (1983) 58 ALJR 51
L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (1982) 56 ALJR 875
Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur v Singh [2013] NSWSC 1343
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Terry Grant Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur (Plaintiff)
Jagjit Singh (First Defendant)
Sarbjit Kaur (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
S Quang (Plaintiff)
No appearances (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Grace Lawyers Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
No appearances (Defendants)
File Number(s):2013/179289

Judgment

  1. On 17 September 2013 I gave judgment on a Notice of Motion filed 6 September 2013: Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur v Singh [2013] NSWSC 1343. The judgment dealt with the right of the trustee to obtain possession of the Certificates of Title by reason of his appointment as trustee of the bankrupt estates of the Defendants.

  1. I made an order pursuant to s 15 Real Property Act 1900 requiring the Defendants to produce the Certificate of Titles for the properties and an alternative order that,0 if they failed to do so, pursuant to s 138 of the Real Property Act the Registrar-General issue a new Certificates of Title for the properties.

  1. At the hearing of the Motion my attention was not drawn to that part of s 15 of the Act which provided that the order must specify a day to be named for the production by the person of the Certificates of Title. Application is now made by the Plaintiff pursuant to r 36.17 UCPR (the "slip rule") to vary order 2 to name a date upon which the Certificates of Title are required to be produced.

  1. I am satisfied that the matter falls squarely within r 36.17. If the matter had been raised at the hearing the order would have included a date by which the Certificates of Title were to be produced: Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd v Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd (1983) 58 ALJR 51; L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council (1982) 56 ALJR 875 at 876-877.

  1. Accordingly order 2 made on 17 September 2013 is varied to read as follows:

(2) An order pursuant to section 15 of the Real Property Act 1900 that the Defendants be required to produce the Certificate of Titles on or before 22 October 2013 for the following properties:

i. the land and premises known as Unit 7, 33 Bowden Street, Harris Park in the State of New South Wales, being the whole of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 7/SP11723; and

ii. the land and premises known as 148 Aberglassyn Road, Rutherford in the State of New South Wales, being the whole of the land comprised in Folio Identifier 1822/1090379.

  1. In the circumstances the amended order is to be served on the Defendants by 5pm on 15 October 2013.

**********

Details
AGLC
Van Der Velde as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Jagjit Singh and Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Sarbjit Kaur v Singh (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1499
Case
[2013] NSWSC 1499
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, acting as trustees for the bankrupt estates of Jagjit Singh and Sarbjit Kaur, brought an action against the defendant, also named Singh, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of a court order that had been issued concerning the defendant's obligations under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The plaintiffs sought to enforce the order, which they claimed the defendant had failed to comply with, and as a result, they applied for variations to the original order under the slip rule.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the order in question and the appropriate procedure for varying it. The plaintiffs argued that the original order should have specified a precise date by which the defendant was to perform a certain act, and that the order needed to be varied to include such a date. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the order was clear as it stood and that any variation would be inappropriate.

The court found that the original order was indeed ambiguous in terms of the date by which the defendant was to perform the specified act. Given the nature of the ambiguity, the court exercised its discretion under the slip rule to vary the order to include a specific date for the performance of the act. The court emphasised the importance of clarity in court orders to avoid future disputes and ensure that all parties understand their obligations. The variation of the order was deemed necessary to provide the clarity required and to facilitate the enforcement of the court's decision.

The final orders of the court specified that the original order was varied to include a clear date by which the defendant was to perform the act in question. The defendant was required to comply with the varied order within the specified timeframe. The court also noted that any further applications for variation would require the leave of the court and would be subject to its discretion.

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.