28 Nov 2023
Because the sustaining order was conditional on the caveators taking all reasonable steps to prosecute the substantive proceedings and the Shaws failed to comply (the substantive proceedings were struck out for failure to comply with timetabling orders), the balance of convenience shifted in favour of the proprietor and the caveat should lapse under s143(7).
11 Jul 2023
Because the applicants complied with the statutory notice requirement in s143(3)(a), filed a substantive application within the statutory period, and produced an affidavit providing prima facie support for continuation of the caveat, the Court was justified in exercising its power under s147(4)(b) to grant an interim order that the caveat not lapse pending further order.
7 Jun 2023
On the summary record it was reasonably arguable that an institutional constructive trust existed because the applicant made contributions manifestly exceeding ordinary benefits, there was a common intention/expectation supported by family discussions and a contemporaneous document, the expectation was reasonable in all circumstances, and respondents, from correspondence and offers, could be taken to expect to yield the interest; the caveat description was sufficiently certain; the Registrar's notice was deemed received on 16 September 2022 (not 15 September) and the applicant's application f…
24 Mar 2023
Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable beneficial interest in the property: unsecured loans and corporate power of attorney do not create an equitable interest; asserted holding costs and rates were not supported by specific evidence and are not 'more than minor' contributions for a Lankow institutional constructive trust; the Deed of Arrangement and WeChat communications do not evidence an agreement to confer a beneficial interest or to have respondent hold the property on constructive trust, at best they support contractual claims to sale proceeds. Accordingly the caveat coul…
22 Feb 2023
Applicants (Highrise and GL Group) have standing under s143 as persons who wish to register instruments; however the caveator (Jiang) has established a reasonably arguable caveatable interest in the form of an equitable mortgage/charge under the loan and security agreement; given that arguable interest and the risk of prejudice to Jiang, the Court will not exercise its residual discretion to remove the caveats; accordingly the caveats must not lapse.
28 Nov 2022
The conditional adjournment required the applicant to file and serve an undertaking to pay damages to obtain interim equivalent relief; the applicant did not satisfy the condition so the adjournment did not take effect and the caveat lapsed, but that failure was not a failure to comply with a direction or order and did not justify increased costs; ordinary 2B costs and disbursements were awarded to the first respondent.
2 Nov 2022
Threshold under r5.45(1)(a)(i) was met because the applicant resides in Queensland; the Court exercised its discretion under r5.45(2) because the applicant provided no current financial information, there was long delay in asserting the claim, and the respondent's advanced age and limited income justified protection; security was fixed at $10,000 and proceedings stayed until payment.
4 Jul 2022
Defendants were entitled to costs on a 2B basis because the plaintiff lodged a caveat without a caveatable interest; the general principle that costs follow the event applies in caveat proceedings and 2B costs were appropriate given the issues and urgency, resulting in an award of $7,648 plus $160 disbursements (total $7,808).
7 Jun 2022
Once a contractual right to register a mortgage has been exercised and the mortgage registered, the contractual right to lodge and maintain a caveat to protect that right is spent; a caveat cannot be retained to secure amounts beyond the registered mortgage's stated priority limit or to provide separate security for additional debt, and therefore the caveat was redundant and must lapse.
1 Jun 2022
The applicants established a reasonably arguable case that the 2017 deed remains in force and that DHL's purported cancellation was not clearly valid; because contested factual issues (including whether DHL breached key obligations and the role of the surveyor) exist and are unsuitable for summary determination, the caveat must be maintained pending resolution of substantive proceedings, subject to the applicants continuing to prosecute their claims.