Zeno Entertainment Pty Ltd v Kumar - [2025] QSC 185

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Zeno Entertainment Pty Ltd v Kumar [2025] QSC 185

PARTIES:

ZENO ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD ACN 632 793 590

(Plaintiff)

v

BERNARD BENJAMIN KUMAR

(First Defendant)
And
ASH NITTESH GOUNDAR

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 16652 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 August 2025

JUDGE:

Bowskill CJ

ORDERS:

1.       The plaintiff’s application filed 13 June 2023 is dismissed.

2.       The Court directs the Registrar of Titles to remove the lapsed caveats from the freehold land register.

3.       The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of the application.

4.       The Court will hear from the parties as to the basis of assessment of the costs.

5.       The solicitor for the second defendant is directed to provide a form of order, reflecting the final orders of the Court, including details of the lapsed caveats for the purposes of order 2.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – TORRENS TITLE – CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS – LAPSE – where the plaintiff lodged caveats against the title to real properties owned by the first defendant and the second defendant – where the caveats lapsed, by operation of s 126(4) of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), because no proceedings were commended within time to establish the interest claimed under the caveat – whether it is appropriate to grant leave to lodge a further caveat under s 129 of the Act – whether the plaintiff has a caveatable interest

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), ss 126 and 129

Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) (2022) 13 QR 297
Roberts v Investwell Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] NSWCA 134
Rocky Point Holdings Pty Ltd v TEB Enterprises Pty Ltd (2023) 13 QR 465

COUNSEL:
O E V Wilson for the plaintiff (applicant)
A P McKinnon for the second defendant (respondent)

No appearance by or for the first defendant

SOLICITORS:
AS Legal & Co for the plaintiff (applicant)
Financial Dispute Legal for the second defendant (respondent)

No appearance by or for the first defendant

The plaintiff, Zeno Entertainment, alleges that the first defendant, Mr Kumar, and the second defendant, Mr Goundar, owe a debt of $833,000 under a settlement agreement purportedly entered into in July 2024. By claim filed in this Court in December 2024, Zeno Entertainment seeks to recover that debt. Zeno Entertainment also wishes to allege that Mr Kumar and Mr Goundar are liable, as guarantors, under an earlier joint venture agreement between Zeno Entertainment and Stealth Music Group Pty Ltd, and seeks to enforce an equitable charge over Mr Kumar’s and Mr Goundar’s assets said to have been created under that joint venture agreement. To that end, Zeno Entertainment caused caveats to be lodged over real property owned by each of Mr Kumar and Mr Goundar in January 2025, relying upon that alleged charge as the basis for its caveatable interest. Due to an “oversight” on the part of the Zeno Entertainment’s solicitor, who…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Zeno Entertainment Pty Ltd v Kumar 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: [2025] QSC 185
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zeno Entertainment Pty Ltd brought an action against the Kumars, seeking leave to lodge further caveats against the title of certain properties owned by the defendants. The original caveats had lapsed under s 126(4) of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), as proceedings to establish the interest claimed were not commenced within the requisite time. The central issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to grant the plaintiff leave to lodge a further caveat under s 129 of the Act, and whether the plaintiff had a caveatable interest.

The court considered the circumstances under which the original caveats lapsed and the statutory provisions governing the lodging of further caveats. The plaintiff argued that there were compelling reasons for the lapse of the original caveats, which should be considered in granting leave for new caveats. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of leave for further caveats. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the statutory timeframes for maintaining caveats and noted that the plaintiff's inability to meet these deadlines was not due to any fault on the part of the defendants. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff did not have a caveatable interest as it had not established a sufficient connection to the properties in question.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application and directed the Registrar of Titles to remove the lapsed caveats from the freehold land register. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant’s costs of the application. The court also directed the parties to provide information on the basis for assessing the costs and instructed the solicitor for the second defendant to prepare a form of order detailing the final orders of the court, including the removal of the lapsed caveats.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s application filed 13 June 2023 is dismissed.

2. The Court directs the Registrar of Titles to remove the lapsed caveats from the freehold land register.

3. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of the application.

4. The Court will hear from the parties as to the basis of assessment of the costs.

5. The solicitor for the second defendant is directed to provide a form of order, reflecting the final orders of the Court, including details of the lapsed caveats for the purposes of order 2.

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.

CITATION:	Zeno Entertainment Pty Ltd v Kumar [2025] QSC 185
PARTIES:	ZENO ENTERTAINMENT PTY LTD ACN 632 793 590 (Plaintiff) v BERNARD BENJAMIN KUMAR (First Defendant) And ASH NITTESH GOUNDAR (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 16652 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 August 2025
JUDGE:	Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:	1. The plaintiff’s application filed 13 June 2023 is dismissed. 2. The Court directs the Registrar of Titles to remove the lapsed caveats from the freehold land register. 3. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of the application. 4. The Court will hear from the parties as to the basis of assessment of the costs. 5. The solicitor for the second defendant is directed to provide a form of order, reflecting the final orders of the Court, including details of the lapsed caveats for the purposes of order 2.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – TORRENS TITLE – CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS – LAPSE – where the plaintiff lodged caveats against the title to real properties owned by the first defendant and the second defendant – where the caveats lapsed, by operation of s 126(4) of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), because no proceedings were commended within time to establish the interest claimed under the caveat – whether it is appropriate to grant leave to lodge a further caveat under s 129 of the Act – whether the plaintiff has a caveatable interest Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), ss 126 and 129 Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) (2022) 13 QR 297 Roberts v Investwell Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] NSWCA 134 Rocky Point Holdings Pty Ltd v TEB Enterprises Pty Ltd (2023) 13 QR 465
COUNSEL:	O E V Wilson for the plaintiff (applicant) A P McKinnon for the second defendant (respondent) No appearance by or for the first defendant
SOLICITORS:	AS Legal & Co for the plaintiff (applicant) Financial Dispute Legal for the second defendant (respondent) No appearance by or for the first defendant