Unregistered Mortgage, Judicial Sale, and Discretion in Equity: When Can a Private Lender Force the Court-Managed Sale of Torrens Land to Enforce a Guarantee Security?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] NSWSC 518 (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Real Property List, McGrath J, 21 May 2025), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Real Property List
• Presiding Judge: McGrath J
• Cause of Action: Enforcement of an asserted equitable mortgage or equitable charge over Torrens title land arising from a loan agreement and guarantee, seeking an order for judicial sale and enforcement directions
• Judgment Date: 21 May 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Equitable mortgage
  • Keyword 3: Unregistered mortgage
  • Keyword 4: Judicial sale
  • Keyword 5: Guarantee and indemnity
  • Keyword 6: Torrens title caveat

Background

A private lender advanced business funding to a corporate borrower for a short term. The borrower soon stopped paying. The individual guarantor had signed the loan documents in two capacities: as the company’s director and in a personal capacity as guarantor. The lender asserted that, under the loan documents, the guarantor granted security over all present and after-acquired property, including a residential property registered in the guarantor’s name. The lender then lodged a caveat on that property and commenced proceedings seeking a Court-managed sale of the property to satisfy the secured debt.

This case did not unfold like a contested trial where both sides call witnesses and argue over competing facts. Instead, it arose in a procedural reality common in debt recovery: the lender appeared and pressed its claim; the defendants did not appear, did not file defences, and did not participate at the hearing. Even in that setting, the Court’s task remained exacting: equity does not grant drastic remedies by inertia, and a judicial sale is not ordered unless the evidentiary and legal preconditions are shown.

Core Disputes and Claims

• What the Court was required to determine (the real disagreement in legal terms):
  Whether, on the proper construction of the loan agreement and the proved defaults, the lender held an enforceable equitable interest over the guarantor’s Torrens title land as an unregistered mortgage or equitable charge, and whether it was appropriate in the exercise of the Court’s equitable discretion to order a judicial sale of that land.

• Plaintiff’s claims and relief sought:

  • A declaration that the property was subject to an equitable mortgage arising from the loan agreement
  • An order for judicial sale of the property, with the Plaintiff appointed as the Court’s agent to effect the sale
  • Ancillary enforcement orders, including vacant possession, a writ of possession, directions for consultation with the registered mortgagee, directions about minimum sale price tied to the registered mortgage debt, and orders about distribution of sale proceeds
• First Defendant’s position:
  No appearance, no defence, no participation, and no evidence advanced to contest either liability, security, or remedy.

• Second Defendant’s position:
  No appearance and no active role in the proceedings; nonetheless, its position as registered mortgagee remained central to the structure of the Court’s orders because registered interests in Torrens land must be accommodated in any sale process.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The story begins not with a dispute about ownership, but with a business funding transaction designed for speed and certainty.

A corporate borrower operated a hospitality business. Its registered office address was the guarantor’s property. The lender and the corporate borrower entered a short-term loan arrangement in mid-2023. The structure was typical of small business lending: a principal sum was advanced quickly, and the repayment schedule required frequent debits over a fixed term, with a substantially higher total repayment amount by the end of the term.

The guarantor signed the loan agreement in two roles. First, as the company’s director, the guarantor bound the company to repay. Second, as guarantor, the guarantor personally promised to pay if the company did not.

At the same time, the documents went further than a simple promise to pay. They purported to create security. The critical clause provided that the guarantor granted a security interest over all secured property, expressed broadly enough to include real property. In practical terms, the lender sought to transform an unsecured promise into a form of property-backed enforcement.

The deterioration was quick. Only two payments were made soon after the advance. Then the repayment stream stopped entirely.

From there, the dispute moved through predictable debt recovery stages:

• demand letters were sent to the borrower and guarantor
• the lender took steps to protect its claimed interest by lodging a caveat on the guarantor’s property
• proceedings were commenced and later amended
• the lender encountered difficulty locating and serving the guarantor, and was granted substituted service orders
• the registered mortgagee was served but did not participate actively
• occupiers of the property, apparently tenants, were notified under the procedural rules and did not seek joinder

The decisive moment was not a dramatic confrontation, but a legal turning point: the lender sought the Court’s intervention to sell the property through judicial sale, rather than relying on private enforcement alone. That remedy required the Court to be satisfied not only that a debt existed, but that equity recognised and would enforce a property interest in the land.

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Plaintiff’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Loan Agreement (dated mid-July 2023) and Key Terms
   • Initial loan amount advanced: AUD $70,000
   • Term: 22 weeks
   • Repayment amount by the final day of the term: AUD $93,800
   • Scheduled weekly debit amount (as summarised in the reasons): AUD $4,274 per week
   • Repayment date identified as the last day of the term: 14 December 2023
   • Guarantee provisions making the guarantor’s obligations principal and continuing
   • Clauses providing for default interest, fees, and enforcement costs
   • Clauses asserting a security interest over secured property, including present and after-acquired property, expressed to include real property
2. Proof of Advance and Partial Repayments
   • Advance of AUD $70,000
   • Two repayments of approximately AUD $4,264 each in July 2023
   • No further payments thereafter
3. Account Statement or Calculation to a Cut-Off Date
   • Balance of the repayment amount (excluding fees, interest, costs and expenses) asserted to be AUD $85,571 as at early April 2025
4. Caveat Evidence
   • Caveat lodged in August 2023 over the property, asserting an equitable interest as mortgagee pursuant to the security clause
5. Demand Letters
   • A 2023 letter demanding payment within 48 hours of a then-outstanding amount
   • A later demand letter asserting a substantially higher figure including claimed fees, interest and costs
6. Valuation Evidence
   • Independent valuation evidence indicating a market value of AUD $550,000 as at April 2025
7. Service Evidence
   • Affidavit evidence of attempts to locate and serve the First Defendant
   • Compliance with substituted service steps, including physical affixing, delivery to an address, email service, and newspaper advertisements
   • Service on the registered mortgagee
8. Notice to Occupiers
   • Evidence of service of notice to occupiers under the procedural rules and lapse of time without any joinder application

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• First Defendant: none (no appearance; no defence; no affidavit; no cross-examination)
• Second Defendant: none in substance for the hearing (no appearance; did not contest, but did not cooperate with providing an indicative discharge figure pre-sale)

Core Dispute Points

1. Security Characterisation:
   Did the loan agreement and guarantee create an equitable mortgage or equitable charge over the guarantor’s Torrens title land, even though no registered mortgage in favour of the lender existed?

2. Default and Enforcement Trigger:
   Was there a proved event of default enlivening the contractual and equitable enforcement rights?

3. Discretionary Remedy:
   Even if an equitable interest existed, should the Court order judicial sale, given equity’s concern not to make remedies instruments of injustice?

4. Quantum and Proof of Amount Secured:
   What amount was properly proved and should be treated as secured by the asserted equitable mortgage, especially where the lender’s calculations of default interest and legal costs were not transparently supported?

5. Protection of Third-Party Interests:
   How should the orders account for the registered mortgagee and potential interests of occupiers and other caveators?

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Although the reasons focus primarily on contractual terms, procedural history, and the discretionary remedy, the case still illustrates how affidavit practice carries strategic weight in equity proceedings.

How the Parties Used Affidavits as a Narrative Weapon

• Plaintiff’s affidavit function in this case:
  The Plaintiff needed affidavits to do three things at once:
  1. Prove the debt and default through admissible business records and a coherent chronology
  2. Prove the security pathway by placing the executed loan agreement and guarantee before the Court and showing that the security clause was intended to operate as present security
  3. Prove procedural fairness and notice through evidence of service and notices to occupiers, ensuring that the Court could exercise discretion on an informed basis
• Defendants’ absence as an affidavit event:
  The First Defendant and Second Defendant did not file evidence. That did not entitle the Plaintiff to relief automatically. It instead shifted the evidentiary burden in a practical sense: the Plaintiff’s affidavits had to be complete enough that the Court could safely grant equitable relief without an adversarial test.

Comparing Expressions of the Same Fact and the Boundary Between Untruths and Facts

In a contested case, the Court often contrasts competing affidavit accounts of the same event. Here, the contrast was of a different kind:

• A fact presented with detail: the Plaintiff’s assertion of a specific secured balance amount at a cut-off date
• A fact presented without adequate substantiation: the Plaintiff’s asserted magnitude of default interest and legal costs, where calculation methodology and supporting material were missing

This case shows that the “boundary” is not only between competing stories; it is also between:
– a claim that is capable of proof, and
– a claim that is stated but not demonstrated

Equity’s discipline is visible in the Court’s approach: even with no defence, the Court scrutinised the evidentiary foundation for large add-ons beyond the core proved balance.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions About Affidavits

The substituted service orders and notice requirements effectively functioned as procedural directions shaping affidavit evidence. They required the Plaintiff to later demonstrate compliance step-by-step. In equity, that compliance matters because discretionary remedies demand confidence that affected persons had proper notice and an opportunity to respond.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final relief could be granted, the proceeding required procedural arrangements that are routine in real property enforcement cases but often misunderstood by non-lawyers.

Key Procedural Arrangements and Directions Prior to the Final Hearing

• Orders permitting and prescribing substituted service on the First Defendant, later modified, reflecting difficulty locating the First Defendant
• Orders or steps resulting in service on the registered mortgagee (Second Defendant)
• Steps required under the procedural rules to notify occupiers of the property (with a defined period within which occupiers could seek joinder)
• Progression of pleadings to a further amended statement of claim, reflecting refinement of the relief sought and the legal framing of equitable mortgage enforcement

These steps mattered because the final remedy sought was not merely judgment for money, but an order affecting land and third-party interests.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing did not feature the cinematic “ultimate showdown” of duelling advocates cross-examining witnesses. Its intensity was of a different, more technical kind: the Court tested whether the Plaintiff’s documentary case justified a drastic equitable remedy, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support both the existence of the security and the scope of what was secured.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

• The Plaintiff appeared and pressed for orders of judicial sale.
• The First Defendant and Second Defendant did not appear, despite being called.
• There was no cross-examination because no opposing party participated.
• The Court proceeded on the basis of the Plaintiff’s pleaded case and the evidence tendered.

This setting often tempts a misconception: that the Court simply grants what is asked. The reasons show the opposite. The Court:
– identified the legal framework for equitable mortgages and judicial sale, and
– interrogated the sufficiency and reliability of the Plaintiff’s proof, especially regarding amounts claimed beyond the core balance.

Core Evidence Confrontation: The Real Attack-and-Defence Moment

The confrontation was not between witnesses, but between:
– the Plaintiff’s asserted figures, and
– the Court’s insistence on demonstrable calculation

Two pressure points illustrate the Court’s approach:

1. Default interest methodology
   The Plaintiff asserted a substantial amount of default interest, but the precise basis was not provided. The Court performed its own rough checking and declined to make findings that the asserted magnitude of default interest was secured.

2. Legal costs magnitude
   The Plaintiff asserted legal costs that the Court described as very high for debt recovery of that kind, and the Court was not provided with evidence substantiating the calculation.

In practical terms, the Court separated:
– the right to enforce security (which was addressed by the declaration and sale orders), from
– the right to scoop up every asserted add-on (which was deferred unless properly proved, and only if a surplus existed).

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result and How Equity Controlled the Remedy

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three linked moves:

1. Characterise the security as an equitable mortgage or charge
   The Court treated the unregistered mortgage claim as an equitable charge arising from the loan agreement’s security provisions.

2. Confirm default and enforceability
   The borrower’s failure to repay enlivened enforcement rights under the documents, and the guarantor’s obligations supported the lender’s recourse.

3. Exercise discretion to order judicial sale with protections
   Even if judicial sale is often the standard remedy to enforce an equitable charge, it remains equitable and discretionary. The Court required sufficient material about value and amounts owing, and structured the orders to protect the registered mortgagee, occupiers’ procedural rights, and the integrity of sale proceeds distribution.

Judicial Original Quotation Principle: Determinative Dicta

“Without factual material by reference to which the discretion can be exercised, which includes at least the value of the property and the amount owing on the security of it, the exercise of the discretion itself is likely to miscarry.”

This statement matters because it captures why the Plaintiff’s valuation evidence and core debt proof were essential to the remedy. It also explains why the Court was unwilling to endorse large, poorly evidenced add-ons: discretion in equity must be exercised on a stable factual platform, not on assertion.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders granting the core relief sought but imposed a disciplined structure for enforcement.

Final Judgment Result and Orders

• Declaration: the whole of the property identified by folio identifier (redacted in the published reasons) and known as a residential address (redacted in the published reasons) was the subject of an equitable mortgage pursuant to the loan agreement.
• Judicial sale ordered: the property was to be sold by judicial sale, with the Plaintiff appointed as the Court’s agent effecting the sale.
• Vacant possession and enforcement:
  • an order requiring the First Defendant to provide vacant possession within 14 days
  • a writ of possession to issue forthwith but to lie in the Registry for 14 days
• Mortgagee-style duties: the Plaintiff was required to act in accordance with the duties owed by a mortgagee exercising a power of sale.
• Consultation with the registered mortgagee: the Plaintiff was required to consult with the Second Defendant to ascertain the registered mortgage debt.
• Minimum sale price structure: unless the Court otherwise ordered, the Plaintiff was not to sell below the registered mortgage debt. If the registered mortgage debt could not be obtained or the sale price was unlikely to exceed it, the matter was to be relisted for directions about reserve or minimum price.
• Settlement mechanics: at settlement, the Second Defendant was to provide discharge documents in exchange for payment of its mortgage debt.
• Distribution waterfall for sale proceeds:
  1. council rates, water rates, statutory duties and charges
  2. the Plaintiff’s proper costs and expenses relating to sale
  3. the amount due to the Second Defendant under its registered mortgage
  4. AUD $85,571 due to the Plaintiff secured by the equitable mortgage
  5. any surplus to be paid into court
• Transfer power: the Plaintiff was empowered to transfer legal title to effect sale.
• Liberty to apply: liberty to apply was granted for issues arising from sale and distribution, including any further amount sought by the Plaintiff from the proceeds beyond the core amount.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment is a textbook illustration of equity’s double character: it can be powerful in enforcing unregistered security interests, but it is also strict about proof, proportionality, and procedural fairness.

At first glance, the case looks simple: loan, default, security clause, sale. The deeper lesson is that the Court carefully distinguished between:
– establishing the existence of an equitable interest in land, and
– determining the scope of what is secured and payable out of land sale proceeds.

That distinction has jurisprudential value because it shows how a Court can grant enforcement relief while refusing to validate inflated or unproven components of a lender’s claim, especially where the defendants are absent and the risk of one-sided error is higher.

The case also demonstrates the relationship between:
– equitable mortgages and caveats, and
– judicial sale as an equity-managed analogue to a mortgagee sale, with safeguards to avoid injustice.

Judgment Points

1. Equitable mortgage can arise from contractual intention, not registration
   The Court accepted that where parties demonstrate an intention to create present security, equity can recognise an equitable mortgage or charge, even over Torrens land, even without registration in favour of the lender.

2. Specifically enforceable agreement pathway
   The Court treated the security clause, coupled with the circumstances of default and the guarantee structure, as sufficient to found an enforceable equitable interest.

3. Judicial sale is a standard enforcement method but remains discretionary
   The Court approached judicial sale as the standard method of enforcing an equitable charge, yet emphasised that the Court retains discretion and must consider affected interests and the factual material needed for a sound exercise of discretion.

4. Absence of defendants does not remove the Court’s duty of scrutiny
   A key practical point: non-appearance is not a free pass for the plaintiff. The Court still examined whether the evidence supported the remedy and whether the asserted amounts were properly proved.

5. Proof discipline on default interest and legal costs
   The Court refused to make findings that large asserted default interest and legal costs were secured in the absence of clear evidence of calculation and entitlement.

6. Orders structured to protect registered mortgagee priority
   The sale process was explicitly structured around the registered mortgage debt, reflecting Torrens priorities and practical sale realities.

7. Procedural fairness safeguards: occupiers and substituted service
   The Court took account of the Plaintiff’s compliance with substituted service and notice to occupiers, ensuring that third parties had notice and that equity’s conscience was satisfied.

8. Liberty to apply as a pressure-release valve
   The liberty to apply mechanism ensured that if disputes arose regarding minimum price, registered mortgage debt, or the Plaintiff’s further claims, the Court could supervise without needing fresh proceedings.

Legal Basis

The Court’s reasoning drew on established authority and procedural rules, including:

• Principles that an equitable mortgage may arise by agreement showing intention to create a present security, as discussed in Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194 and Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584.
• Principles that an equitable mortgage can arise where there is a specifically enforceable agreement to create a mortgage, as discussed in National Australia Bank Ltd v Clowes [2013] NSWCA 179.
• The proposition that an unregistered mortgage is treated in equity as an equitable charge and that judicial sale is the standard enforcement mechanism, as discussed in King Investment Solutions Pty Ltd v Hussain (2005) 64 NSWLR 441; [2005] NSWSC 1076.
• The discretionary nature of judicial sale and the need to avoid turning equitable relief into an instrument of injustice, as summarised in Guo v Option Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1506 and the authorities discussed there.
• Procedural rules concerning notice to occupiers, including r 6.8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
• The judgment also referred to s 12 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) in discussing the definition of security interest, recognising that the contractual language drew on PPSA concepts even though the enforcement sought was over real property.

Evidence Chain

A practical way to understand the Court’s conclusion is the five-link chain: conclusion equals evidence plus statutory and equitable framework.

1. Executed loan agreement and guarantee
   Proved the borrowing, the repayment obligations, the guarantor’s promise, and the asserted grant of security.

2. Advance and repayment history
   Proved performance by the lender and default by the borrower.

3. Demands and continuing default
   Supported the proposition that default subsisted and enforcement was justified.

4. Caveat and security characterisation
   Supported the lender’s claim of a present security interest in land, framed as an equitable mortgage.

5. Valuation evidence and practical sale structure
   Provided the factual material necessary to exercise discretion: market value evidence and a sale mechanism that protected the registered mortgagee and accounted for other potential interests.

6. Procedural fairness proof: substituted service and occupier notice
   Confirmed that relief would not be granted in a manner inconsistent with fairness to absent or affected persons.

Judicial Original Quotation Principle

“I have not been provided with the precise basis on which the default interest has been calculated… I make no finding that default interest of that magnitude is secured…”

This was determinative because it shows the Court’s refusal to convert an asserted spreadsheet outcome into a secured entitlement without transparent proof. The remedy granted was strong, but not indiscriminate.

“I was also not provided with any evidence substantiating the calculation of legal costs… I make no finding that legal costs of that magnitude are secured…”

This was determinative because it protected the integrity of the sale proceeds distribution. It also signalled a broader judicial concern: debt recovery proceedings must not be used to convert weakly supported costs claims into property-backed recovery.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The First Defendant’s failure was not framed as moral blame but as litigation reality with legal consequences:

1. Non-participation removed the opportunity to contest security characterisation
   If the First Defendant wished to argue that the security clause did not create a present security over land, or that it was not specifically enforceable, that argument needed to be pleaded and supported. It was not.

2. Non-participation removed the opportunity to contest default and quantum
   A defendant can sometimes contest default by showing misapplied payments, unconscionable fees, penalty characterisation, or defective notices. None of that occurred.

3. Non-participation increased the Court’s reliance on documentary proof
   The Court still scrutinised the Plaintiff’s claims, but absent evidence from the defendant meant that the Plaintiff’s narrative formed the evidentiary spine of the case.

4. Failure to engage with service and notice mechanisms
   The Plaintiff proved substituted service steps and notice to occupiers. Without any responsive participation, the Court could be satisfied that the proceedings were properly brought to the defendant’s attention.

5. Practical vulnerability of land-backed enforcement
   Once the Court was satisfied that an equitable mortgage existed and default was proved, the defendant’s non-engagement made a judicial sale order a legally coherent and practically effective enforcement tool.

Key to Victory

• The Plaintiff’s most critical success factors were:
  • producing a coherent documentary record showing the loan, the guarantee, the security grant, and default
  • providing valuation evidence to support a sound discretionary exercise
  • proving substituted service and occupier notice compliance to satisfy equity’s conscience
  • accepting a disciplined approach to distribution and leaving contested add-ons to a later proof process if surplus existed

Reference to Comparable Authorities

• Westfield Holdings Ltd v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd (1992) 32 NSWLR 194
  Ratio: an equitable mortgage can arise where there is a demonstrated intention to create present security, even if the formal legal interest is not perfected.

• Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1982] AC 584
  Ratio: equity focuses on substance and intention in recognising security interests; the form is not determinative where present security is intended.

• National Australia Bank Ltd v Clowes [2013] NSWCA 179
  Ratio: an equitable mortgage may arise where there is a specifically enforceable agreement to create a mortgage; equity will treat as done that which ought to be done.

• King Investment Solutions Pty Ltd v Hussain (2005) 64 NSWLR 441; [2005] NSWSC 1076
  Ratio: an unregistered mortgage operates as an equitable charge, and judicial sale is the standard mechanism for enforcing that charge, but discretion requires adequate factual material including value and amount owing.

• Guo v Option Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1506
  Ratio: judicial sale arises from inherent equitable jurisdiction; the remedy is discretionary and the Court must avoid making orders that become instruments of injustice, taking account of affected persons and the evidentiary platform.

Additional authorities referenced within that framework include Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v Cosmas Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 406, Morris Finance Ltd v Free (2017) 18 BPR 37,223; [2017] NSWSC 1417, Thorn v Boyd [2016] NSWSC 1344, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [2012] NSWSC 161, Harriette & Co Pty Ltd v Platine Property Development Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1611, and ACT Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Pohorukov [2024] NSWSC 218, each reinforcing aspects of discretion, factual sufficiency, and avoidance of injustice.

Implications

1. A security clause can quietly turn a personal guarantee into property-backed exposure
   Many people treat guarantees as abstract promises. This case shows how a guarantee coupled with a security grant can place real property at risk, even if no registered mortgage is created in the lender’s name.

2. Silence in litigation is not neutrality; it is surrender of control
   If a person does not appear, does not file a defence, and does not put on evidence, the Court can still protect fairness, but it cannot run the absent party’s case. The absent party loses the chance to shape outcomes.

3. Equity can be firm and fair at the same time
   The Court granted strong relief but refused to validate unproven add-ons. That balance is a reminder that courts can enforce obligations while still requiring proof and proportionality.

4. Procedural notices to occupiers are not paperwork; they are rights in action
   Tenants and occupiers can have real procedural rights. When served properly, they must decide whether to participate, seek advice, or risk the process continuing without them.

5. If you are vulnerable to enforcement, early legal advice is a form of self-protection
   The most empowering move is often early: understanding what you signed, what security you granted, and what steps can be taken to negotiate, restructure, or contest before the remedy becomes irreversible.

Q&A Session

Q1: If the lender does not have a registered mortgage, how can the Court still order a sale of the property?
Because equity can recognise an equitable mortgage or charge where the documents show an intention to create present security, or where there is a specifically enforceable agreement to create a mortgage. Judicial sale is the conventional way equity enforces an equitable charge, subject to discretion.

Q2: Does a defendant’s failure to appear mean the plaintiff automatically gets everything claimed?
No. The Court still requires proof. In this case, the Court was not prepared to make findings that large default interest and legal costs were secured without proper evidence. The Court can grant core relief while refusing to endorse unsupported components.

Q3: Why did the Court structure the sale around the registered mortgagee’s debt?
Because the registered mortgagee holds a registered interest with priority in Torrens land. The Court’s orders ensured the sale process respected that priority and ensured sale proceeds were distributed in an ordered way, with protection against selling below the registered mortgage debt without further Court directions.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Real Property Enforcement in Equity, unregistered mortgage and judicial sale application arising from a business loan guarantee security
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment granting declaration and orders for judicial sale, with liberty to apply for further directions

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case most closely aligns with:

⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution

Core Test Standards to Check Step-by-Step

Step 1: Jurisdiction and Proper Forum
– Identify the Court’s jurisdictional basis for the relief sought.
– In real property equity matters, confirm that the proceeding is properly brought in an equity list appropriate to real property relief.
– Confirm that the relief is equitable in nature, such as declaration of equitable interest and judicial sale, rather than purely legal debt recovery.

Step 2: Pleadings Must Articulate the Cause of Action and Remedy Pathway
– Ensure the statement of claim pleads:
– the loan agreement and its relevant terms
– the guarantee and indemnity obligations
– the security grant and why it creates an equitable mortgage or equitable charge
– the default events enlivening enforcement
– why judicial sale is sought, and why alternative remedies are inadequate or inappropriate
– Check that the pleading distinguishes between:
– a personal money claim, and
– proprietary relief affecting land

Step 3: Service and Notice Compliance
– Confirm personal service if possible.
– If not possible, seek substituted service orders and comply exactly with their terms. Non-compliance tends to be treated as a relatively high risk to final relief, particularly where property rights are affected.
– For land possession and sale-related relief, comply with notice provisions to occupiers, because occupiers can be affected by possession orders and sale processes.

Step 4: Evidence of Debt, Default, and Amount Owing
– Prove:
– the advance and repayment history
– default dates and the continuing nature of default
– the amount owing at a defined cut-off date
– Where the claim includes fees, default interest, and legal costs:
– provide the calculation methodology
– provide underlying contractual clauses and how they apply
– provide admissible records supporting each component
– The risk tends to be materially higher if large add-ons are claimed without transparent calculation proof, particularly where the other side does not appear and the Court must guard against one-sided overreach.

Step 5: Evidence Supporting the Exercise of Discretion for Judicial Sale
– Provide:
– valuation evidence of the property
– evidence of the amount owing on the security
– evidence addressing interests of registered mortgagees and other known encumbrancers
– evidence regarding occupiers and notice
– Courts tend to require this material because judicial sale is discretionary and the discretion can miscarry if exercised without a stable factual platform.

Step 6: Limitation Period Considerations
– Check whether any limitation period issues arise for:
– contractual debt claims
– equitable proprietary enforcement
– Limitation questions can be complex and fact-dependent; risk tends to increase where the transaction is older, where there are multiple amendments to pleadings, or where enforcement is delayed.

Step 7: Disclosure and Documentary Integrity
– Even in relatively streamlined matters, ensure:
– relevant loan documents are produced in complete form
– key schedules and definitions are included
– the chain of records supporting balance calculations is coherent
– Failure to produce complete documents tends to increase risk, especially where the remedy sought is drastic.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory or contractual pathways are uncertain or incomplete, equity can provide alternative routes. These possibilities are contextual and tend to depend on the detail of communications and conduct.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

• Clear promise or representation: Did one party make a clear and unequivocal promise about security, repayment concessions, or forbearance?
• Detrimental reliance: Did the other party act on that promise, such as refraining from enforcement steps, paying money, or taking steps affecting property?
• Unconscionability: Would it be against conscience to allow the promisor to resile?
• Practical relevance in this case-type:
  If a borrower or guarantor can show a lender promised a restructure or agreed not to enforce security for a period, and the guarantor relied on it to their detriment, estoppel arguments may be available. These arguments can be relatively difficult without written proof, but they may be viable where communications are clear and reliance is substantial.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

• Benefit at expense: Has one party received a benefit, such as proceeds, labour, or value improvements, at the expense of the other?
• Against conscience: Is retention of that benefit without repayment against conscience?
• Remedial outcomes: Restitutionary orders or constructive trust declarations can sometimes be sought, depending on the facts.
• Practical relevance in this case-type:
  In enforcement disputes involving multiple caveats and competing interests, constructive trust or unjust enrichment arguments can sometimes arise, especially where third parties claim they contributed funds improving property value or paying mortgage instalments.

Procedural Fairness

In civil enforcement contexts, procedural fairness issues can arise in:
– substituted service processes
– notice to occupiers
– the fairness of granting proprietary relief without meaningful opportunity to be heard
If there is defective service or incomplete compliance with notice requirements, a set-aside application can sometimes be viable. Risk tends to increase where the record is thin or compliance is partial.

Ancillary Claims

• If a proprietary enforcement claim is weak, plaintiffs sometimes pursue a simpler route:
  • money judgment on debt and guarantee
  • bankruptcy proceedings
  • statutory demand and winding up procedures
    These alternatives can be effective but depend on solvency, strategic priorities, and evidence quality.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Jurisdiction threshold: the Court must have jurisdiction to grant equitable proprietary relief affecting land.
• Service threshold: the defendant must be properly served, or substituted service must be ordered and complied with.
• Factual sufficiency threshold for discretion: evidence tends to be required about:
  • property value
  • amount owing
  • known interests likely to be affected
• Occupier notice threshold: where possession-related relief affects occupiers, compliance with the procedural rules is essential.
• Practical sale threshold: the sale mechanism must account for registered mortgagee priority and avoid sale at a price that undermines lawful interests without supervision.

Exceptional Channels

• If personal service is not possible: substituted service may be ordered, but only if the applicant demonstrates reasonable steps and proposes a method likely to bring proceedings to attention.
• If registered mortgagee debt is not provided: the Court may require relisting for directions, including reserve price settings, because proceeding without the registered mortgage figure can create a relatively high risk of an unfair or impractical sale process.
• If the amount claimed includes substantial add-ons: the Court may grant core enforcement relief but require further application and proof for additional sums, especially where there may be a surplus.

Suggestion

Do not abandon a potential claim or defence simply because the process looks advanced. In property enforcement matters, applications to set aside, to vary enforcement orders, or to obtain directions can sometimes be available, particularly where service, notice, or proof of quantum is contested. Outcomes depend heavily on evidence quality and timeliness.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
– the characterisation of unregistered security clauses as equitable mortgages or charges over Torrens land
– the discretionary nature of judicial sale as an equitable remedy
– the evidentiary requirements for the exercise of discretion, particularly valuation and amount owing
– judicial reluctance to treat poorly supported default interest and legal cost claims as secured without proof

Citation Method

• As Positive Support:
  When your matter involves a loan agreement or guarantee with broad security language and the lender seeks enforcement against land, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that equity can recognise and enforce an unregistered mortgage interest by judicial sale, subject to discretion and adequate evidence.

• As a Distinguishing Reference:
  If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise factual differences such as:

  • absence of valuation evidence
  • contested service or procedural irregularities
  • credible evidence that the security clause did not intend present security over land
  • competing equitable interests or hardship factors affecting third parties
  • contested quantum where calculation evidence is missing

Anonymisation Rule

Do not use real names of parties when narrating or publishing case analyses in a way that could expose individuals beyond what is necessary for legal citation. Use procedural titles such as Plaintiff, First Defendant, and Second Defendant when reconstructing facts and reasoning, while retaining formal citation style for authorities and legislation where required by professional standards.

---

Conclusion

This judgment shows how equity can convert a security clause in a loan-and-guarantee package into a Court-supervised sale of Torrens title land, while still demanding proof and restraint on quantum. The Plaintiff succeeded because it proved the documents, default, valuation, and procedural fairness steps, and because the Court structured the remedy to protect registered priorities and prevent unproven add-ons from being treated as secured without evidence.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ([2025] NSWSC 518), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.