Purdon v Purdon & Anor [No 2] [2007] NSWSC 395

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Purdon v Purdon & Anor [No 2] [2007] NSWSC 395

HEARING DATE(S) : 27 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 27 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Smart AJ at 1

DECISION : See paras 35-36

CATCHWORDS : Entitlement to Interest on Judgment - Entitlement to costs - both parties partly successful - whether taking of accounts should be ordered

Civil Procedure Act 2005 LEGISLATION CITED : UCPR Rules Conveyancing Act 1919

CASES CITED : MBP(SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1990-1991) 171 CLR 657

PARTIES : John Wentworth Purdon (JP) v Steven Purdon (SP) & David Webb [No 2]

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3548/05

COUNSEL : (P) Mr F Kalyk (D1) Mr G Segal

SOLICITORS : (P) Kemp Strang (D1) Segal & Associates

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

SMART AJ

Friday, 27 April 2007

3548/05: John Wentworth PURDON (JP) v Steven PURDON (SP) & David WEBB JUDGMENT 1 Following upon the earlier judgment the parties advanced arguments as to the terms of the orders which should be made, interest, costs and whether the taking of accounts should be ordered.

2 Counsel for JP prepared draft short minutes of the orders to be made consistent with the earlier judgment.

Form of Orders 1 and 3

3 Order 1 in the draft short minutes reads: "Order that judgment be entered for the first defendant on the plaintiff's claim under the assigned Citibank debt and guarantee."

The first defendant was prepared to accept this draft order It accords with the first order envisaged in para 223 of my earlier judgment namely, "Judgment for SP on JP's claim for $213,303.10 based on the assignment of the debt of $426,606.20 from Citibank to JP." I am prepared to accept Order 1 in the draft short minutes. 4 As to Order 3 in the draft short minutes and proposed order 3 in para 223 of my judgment, I note that counsel for the plaintiff has told me that the plaintiff (JP) has elected to treat the transfer to the second defendant of the interest of the first defendant (SP) as a tenant in common in the property known as 39A Raimonde Road, Eastwood, being the land comprised in folio identifier 2/531646, of about 30 March 2001 as void. I should also record that during argument on 27 March 2007 it was made clear, with additional evidence, that this property had stood in the name of both the first and second defendants from 1987 to 30 March 2001 as tenants in common in equal shares. It was about this latter date that the first defendant transferred his interest to the second defendant.