20 Jun 2012
CHEN V PRASAD HC AK CIV-2012-404-001636
- Citation
- openlaw-3703b087_133b_4977_8aec_19068ad91ab7.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Leave to lodge the second caveats was refused because the applicant had not established a caveatable interest: there was no evidence of mortgagee consent so the alleged lease did not survive the mortgagee sale (s105 LTA), the tenancy binding on purchasers was that of the occupying tenant converted under s58 RTA rather than the applicant's claimed lease, and it would be an improper exercise of discretion to permit re-litigation of a matter after the earlier caveat had been discharged.