The recent WA Supreme Court case of Bunnings v Hanson Construction  considers a competing equities dispute between two suppliers.
The decision serves as an important reminder for businesses who supply goods or services on credit to be aware of the factors courts take into account in determining priorities between equitable interests should the debtor’s assets be insufficient to cover the debts of all creditors.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed an application for the removal of caveats over a number of properties.
In DT & MF Holdings v Ascendia Accountants , the Applicants needed to establish that there existed no serious question to be tried. All attempts to do this failed.
Equitable charges came under the spotlight in a recent NSW Supreme Court ruling. In Morris Finance Ltd v Free  NSWSC the Court analysed the wording of a lease agreement. Did it contain language necessary to create an equitable charge?
The Lender looked to enforce the charge by seeking orders for judicial sale of property and ancillary orders for possession.
In a recent judgment a plaintiff with an equitable charge gains the upper hand in a priority dispute. However, due to raising avoidable issues, the Court deducts the unnecessary legal fees.
Morris Finance Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Ors  VSC 260 (18 May 2017) highlights the need for a clear legal strategy. Due to not having one the plaintiff had its costs reduced by 25%.
Construction of contractual terms and the concept of priority between secured lenders.
In AET SPV Management Pty Limited v Wildfire Amusements Pty Ltd the court was required to construe an agreement to determine whether a mortgagee had agreed to postpone the priority of its first registered mortgage in favour of another lender.