Rolico Pty Ltd v Quen Jen Fu [2005] NSWSC 683

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Rolico Pty Ltd v Quen Jen Fu [2005] NSWSC 683

HEARING DATE(S) : 01/07/05

JUDGMENT DATE : 1 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF : White J

DECISION : 1. Decline to make the injunction sought; 2. refuse the order in paragraph 1 of the summons; 3. proceedings stood over to the Registrar's list on Thursday 7 July; 4. costs of today's application will be the defendant's costs in the proceedings; 5. The exhibits may be returned after twenty-eight days.

CATCHWORDS : PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to extend caveat or for an injunction - Interest in land claimed on the basis of option to purchase - Dispute as to authenticity of alleged option - Delay - Undertaking as to damages from company with nominal paid up capital - Extension of caveat and injunction refused - No question of principle.

Rolico Pty Limited PARTIES : v Quen Jen Fu

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3789/05

Plaintiff: D Allen COUNSEL : Defendant: C J Bevan, A C M Iuliano

Plaintiff: J Kekatos Lawyers SOLICITORS : Defendant: N/A

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION DUTY JUDGE LIST

WHITE J

Friday, 1 July 2005

3789/05 Rolico Pty Limited v Quen Jen Fu JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings started as an application by the plaintiff for an order extending a caveat over the defendant's property. Proceedings were commenced yesterday when orders for short service were obtained. I am told that the caveat will expire perhaps today. Given the lateness of the hour, I will not go into the facts in as much detail as might otherwise be warranted. 2 The defendant opposed the extension of the caveat. The caveat prohibits the recording in the register of any dealing other than a plan affecting the estate or interest claimed by the caveator or set out in schedule 1. The defendant needs to refinance her existing borrowings and the caveat precludes that finance being completed. It is clear that the caveat is too wide and the plaintiff did not ultimately press for the order which it sought in paragraph 1 of the summons. Instead it seeks an injunction until further order or until a fixed time, from entering into any contract for sale or, I assume, the granting of any option over the property which is the land in lot D in folio identifier 378203.