Provident Capital Ltd v Anderson [2011] NSWSC 315

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Provident Capital Ltd v Anderson [2011] NSWSC 315 Hearing dates: 8 April 2011 Decision date: 18 April 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: (i) That the defendant, pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings, be restrained from entering Barry Station without the written consent of the plaintiff and, if so, and to the extent required by the plaintiff, on such terms as the plaintiff may impose . (ii) That, within 14 days of the date of this order, the defendant file and serve an affidavit in these proceedings in which he explains with precision: (a) what has become of the cattle which he removed from Barry Station; and (b) what has become of the trucks, plant and equipment and other items which he removed from Barry Station. Catchwords: INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS - protection of property and goods in dispute - mortgages over real estate and goods mortgage related to farming - serious question to be tried - balance of convenience favours making orders Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 Supreme Court Act 1970 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Provident Capital Ltd (Plaintiff) Ian Maxwell Anderson (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: N. Beaumont (Plaintiff) C. Purdy (Defendant) Solicitors: Tiernan Lawyers (Plaintiff) Richard Wilson (Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/159025

Judgment 1The plaintiff, Provident Capital Ltd (hereinafter "Provident"), seeks interlocutory orders against the defendant, who, it is said, is in default of certain mortgages. The proceedings were commenced by a short form of statement of claim for possession, which statement of claim cites mortgages over land and seeks possession of the land, known as "Barry Station". The dispute between Provident and Mr Anderson extends beyond real property interests to an alleged default in relation to a goods mortgage. The goods mortgage relates to goods on Barry Station. 2At this stage, all that is sought is interlocutory orders, the obvious purpose of which is the protection of the real and personal property pending the finalisation of the proceedings.