New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] NSWSC 546 HEARING DATE(S) : 21 May 2010 JURISDICTION : Equity JUDGMENT OF : Biscoe AJ EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 21 May 2010 DECISION : Orders of 16 April 2010 varied. CATCHWORDS : JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - variation CASES CITED : Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 285 Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd (plaintiff) PARTIES : Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (first defendant) Donald Trevor Harding (second defendant) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2010/00050000 COUNSEL : D Sulan (plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Aleco Vrisakis (plaintiff) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION BISCOE AJ 21 May 2010 2010/00050000 HILLCREST (ILFORD) PTY LTD v KINGSFORD (ILFORD) PTY LTD EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: On 16 April 2010 I made orders and delivered reasons for judgment: Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 285. Order 3 was: "Declaration that the defendants withdraw caveat number AF76146Q from the title of the property known as "Hillcrest", xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx, Ilford, New South Wales." 2 The plaintiff now moves for a variation of Order 3 by adding at the end the following words: "within seven days from 21 May 2010, failing which the Registrar-General is to remove the caveat from the title known as, "Hillcrest", xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx, Ilford, New South Wales." 3 The evidence discloses that the defendants have not complied with order 3 made on 16 April 2010 and that the plaintiff's representations to the defendants that they do so have been to no avail. In the circumstances I accept that the order should be varied in the way sought by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I make orders in accordance with the document entitled "Order" dated 21 May 2010 which I initial and place with the papers. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.