NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Marcel Esber v Kimberley Securities Limited [2009] NSWSC 1422 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S) : 3 & 7 December 2009
JUDGMENT DATE : 16 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF : Hammerschlag J
DECISION : Judgment for the first and third plaintiffs against the second defendant [see paragraphs 63-64 of the judgment]
CATCHWORDS : REAL PROPERTY – Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 58(3)– construction – whether reference to subsequent mortgages is restricted to subsequent registered mortgages – whether "in payment of subsequent mortgages" means in payment of moneys actually owing – EQUITY – nature of obligations of mortgagee holding a surplus after property sold –second mortgagee held surplus after mortgaged property was sold – unregistered third mortgagee claimed entitlement to surplus but in fact was owed nothing – mortgagors too claimed entitlement to surplus – second mortgagee paid surplus to third mortgagee under indemnity – held payment was not in payment of a subsequent mortgage and third mortgagee had no equitable interest in the surplus – mortgagors entitled to equitable compensation from the second mortgagee
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) Duties Act 1997 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED : Transfer of Land Act 1954 (Vic) Property Law Act 1974 – 1976 Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
CATEGORY : Principal judgment
Re S & D International Pty Ltd (in liq) [2009] VSC 225 Ex parte Australian Co-operative Development Society Limited (In liquidation) [1978] Qd.R. 395 Avco Financial Services Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1989) 17 NSWLR 679 Fraser v Australian Securities & Investment Commission, In the Matter of Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 85 Chan v Cresdon Pty Ltd (1989) 168 CLR 242 Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197 Australian Alliance Assurance Co Ltd v Attorney General (Qld) [1916] St R Qd 135 CASES CITED : Director of Public Prosecutions v Turner [1974] AC 357 Re Murrell; Ex parte Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1984) 57 ALR 85 Keech v Sandford (1926) Sel Cas t King 61 Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 Maguire v Makaronis (1996) 188 CLR 449 Adams v Bank of New South Wales [1984] 1 NSWLR 285 Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited [2009] HCA 44 Charles v Jones (1887) 35 Ch D 544
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate