Body Corporate 81012 v Memelink

The case involves an interlocutory application by the Receivers of the Link Trust (No 1) seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from registering a caveat that would obstruct the sale of units in a Body Corporate. The defendants, Harry Memelink and Cisca Johnette Forster, had lodged the caveat to prevent the sale of a unit, despite ongoing receivership proceedings and orders by the Court to stay all proceedings by and against the Trust unless the Receivers agreed or the Court otherwise ordered. The application was heard urgently, despite objections from Mr Memelink regarding his personal circumstances and service of the application.

The legal issues centered on whether the defendants had a legitimate basis for lodging the caveat and whether the Receivers were entitled to an injunction to prevent the defendants from further interfering with the sale of the units. The court considered whether there were serious questions to be tried and where the balance of convenience lay in granting the injunction. The court held that the defendants' caveat was an abuse of process and sought to undermine the Court's orders, thereby establishing the need for an injunction. The defendants lacked any legitimate interest in the properties to justify the caveat, and any claims they had were to be addressed through the receivership process.

The court found that the defendants' actions were an abuse of process and granted the injunction, preventing the defendants from lodging further caveats and interfering with the sale of the units. The court also ordered that the caveat already lodged be removed as an abuse of process. Additionally, the defendants were granted the right to apply to the Court for leave to lodge a caveat if they had a lawful reason to do so, ensuring their rights were protected while preventing further interference with the sale process. Costs were awarded against both defendants on a joint and several basis.

In summary, the court granted the Receivers' application for an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the sale of units in the Body Corporate, finding that the defendants' actions were an abuse of process. The court's orders ensured the defendants could not further obstruct the sale process while preserving their right to apply for leave to lodge a caveat if they had a lawful reason to do so.