|
Parties often seek to lodge a caveat over
another person's property claiming a caveatable interest. Whether or not a caveat can be lodged on a
property depends on the facts of each matter.
The following cases deal with situations where caveats were lodged and
how the Court dealt with these issues.
Nittis v Nittis [2007] NSWSC 1407
1 November 2007
These were proceedings for the withdrawal of a caveat. The property was the
subject of a contract of sale with settlement booked for the day after the
proceedings. The Defendant submitted that there was a bitter matrimonial
dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant over the property. This was the
third caveat lodged by the Defendant over this property. The interest claimed
was an equitable interest pursuant to Family Court proceedings. The Court
indicated that the estate or interest claimed was prima facie, not a valid
equitable interest in the land. Furthermore, as the caveat was on identical
terms to the two earlier caveats, the provisions of s 74O of the RPA were
attracted. Section 74O indicates that where a caveat has lapsed and the same
caveator lodges a further caveat in respect of the same estate, interest or
right the caveat has no effect unless the Supreme Court has made an order
giving leave for the lodgement of the further caveat. The Court indicated that
the present caveat was without effect and without justification. Therefore the
Court ordered the withdrawal of the caveat.
Raptis & Ors v Wija Investments Development Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWSC 870
27 July 2007
The
case concerned an application to extend a caveat. What the Court had to
consider was whether the phrase "equitable interest" sufficiently described the
interest claimed. The Court held that a description of the estate or interest
in land merely as an ‘equitable interest' does not comply with the requirement
to state with sufficient particularity the nature of the estate or interest in
the land claimed. Therefore, the caveat was held to be incurably bad in form
and the application was dismissed.
Surfers Paradise Coaches
(Qld) Pty Ltd v Tsu Chan Lin [2007] NSWSC 475
3 May
2007
The
case concerned an application to extend a caveat or, alternatively, for an
order pursuant to s 74O of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) that the
Plaintiff have leave to lodge further caveats. The caveatable interest was
pursuant to a deed of personal guarantee not a proprietary interest in subject
properties. However, there was a difficulty in identifying what caveatable
interest was created by the deed as the deed failed to contain express words of
a charge. It recited that the Defendant had given a personal guarantee of the
stated debt and also recited that the guarantee was to repay the debt upon the
sale or the financing of the subject properties.
The Court indicated that it was doubtful whether the recital evidenced an
agreement to pay the debt out of the proceeds of the sale or financing of the
properties. Furthermore, even if it did, such a promise would not create an
interest in the properties themselves. Additionally, it was found that the
terms of deed rebutted any implication that an agreement to allow lodgement of
a caveat created a proprietary interest by way of a charge. Therefore, the
notice of motion was dismissed with costs.
Wehbe v Abboud [2007] NSWSC 548
21
March 2007
In the
case the caveat claimed an "equitable interest" by virtue of "exchange contract
of sale of the subject property dated 19 November 2006". However, the caveat
was lodged by a party, namely a vendor's conveyancer, who was not a party to
the contract. The Court deemed it plain that the caveator personally had no
caveatable interest in the subject land, and that there never was the slightest
basis for him to lodge a caveat claiming an interest in it. Therefore, an order
was made that the Defendant to withdraw the caveat. Furthermore, the Defendant
was ordered to pay compensation for the loss occasioned by the wrongful lodging
of caveat.
Rosendorff
Lawyers can advise on all issues relating to the lodging of caveats.
Please
note that the information referred to above provides general comments only and
may not be applicable to your specific requirements in respect of which you
should obtain legal advice.
For further
information please contact Trevor Rosenthal on
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
. (03) 8320 2954 www.rosendorff.com.au
|