Wood v Crow [2005] NSWSC 983

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Wood v Crow [2005] NSWSC 983

HEARING DATE(S) : 23 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 23 September 2005

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Palmer J

DECISION : Application for extension of caveat or interlocutory injunction refused.

CATCHWORDS : CAVEAT - INJUNCTION - ORAL AGREEMENT - PART PERFORMANCE - Whether sufficient evidence of part performance of oral agreement for sale of land to justify extension of caveat or injunction - whether any interest pursuant to oral agreement vested in official receiver on Plaintiff's bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - s.58 LEGISLATION CITED : Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) - s.54A

Jennifer Wood - Plaintiff PARTIES : Michael Robert Crow - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5099/05

J-P. Redmond - Plaintiff COUNSEL : J.B. Conomy - Defendant

Betar Lawyers - Plaintiff SOLICITORS : Reimer Winter Williamson - Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

Ex tempore

1 The Plaintiff seeks two orders in the alternative. One is an order that the operation of a caveat which she has placed upon the subject land be extended, and the second is an order restraining the Defendant from selling the subject property. 2 The Plaintiff claims that she has an equitable interest in the subject land by reason of an oral agreement made between herself and the Defendant in about January or February 1999. The agreement is said to be as follows. 3 Because the Plaintiff and her husband were in financial difficulties in early 1999, they were considering selling their house. They knew the Defendant as a fellow parishioner. The Defendant agreed to assist them in their difficulty by buying their house and paying the market price for it, less some deductions in respect of repairs which had to be carried out. 4 The Plaintiff says that the Defendant agreed that he would permit the Plaintiff and her husband to continue living in the property, which was their family home, upon payment of a certain rent, and that when the Plaintiff and her husband were free of their financial difficulty, he would sell the property back to them at the price which he had paid for it. The Plaintiff says that that oral agreement has given her an interest in the land which she now seeks to enforce. In order to support her interest in the land she has placed a caveat on the title. 5 The Defendant denies that any agreement was made between the Plaintiff, her husband and himself in the terms alleged. He says that he simply bought the property from the Plaintiff and agreed to lease it to them. 6 The issues which have been raised on this application are as follows: