17 Nov 2022
On balance and on the untested evidence the applicant established a reasonably arguable case for an institutional constructive trust on each Lankow element (contributions, expectation, reasonableness of expectation, and that respondents should reasonably expect to yield an interest), so the court exercised its discretion under s146 to permit the lodging of second caveats over the four properties.
28 Aug 2018
Applicant failed to prove a reasonably arguable case of a constructive trust: pleaded agreement was ambiguous and effectively contractual/unsecured creditor in nature; March 2017 letter and payments were consistent with a landlord‑tenant arrangement; contributions and maintenance were not shown to be more than minor or causally linked to acquisition/enhancement, and non‑disclosure during bankruptcy undermined the claim; therefore caveat could not be sustained and was allowed to lapse.
11 Jun 2014
The Court refused the s 148 order because the applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable constructive trust in the land: his contributions did not give rise to a reasonable expectation of a proprietary interest in the land, the evidence supported at best personal debt or limited harvesting rights in the trees, and there was no adequate explanation for the lapse of the first caveat and the lengthy delay in prosecuting the claim.