12 Sept 2016
The caveator established a reasonably arguable claim to a beneficial interest in the Wellsford property arising from contributions and the conversion of the Glenbrook proceeds such that the caveat was supported; discretionary considerations did not justify ordering the caveat to lapse at this interlocutory stage, so the caveat must be sustained.
2 Sept 2016
The caveat was dismissed because Mr Hill no longer had any present equitable or beneficial interest capable of supporting the caveat: the Lease had expired/been cancelled and Hill's further proceedings and assertions did not establish a reasonably arguable proprietary interest; late service of opposition was extended and did not prejudice fairness.
15 Dec 2015
A mortgagee is within the statutory concept of proprietor and may use s145A; CBI failed to establish a reasonably arguable caveatable interest because the 4 March 2014 agreement was uncertain and unenforceable (defective purchaser entity, lack of required formal assignment/consideration, conditional collateral agreements and intervening liquidations), CBI could not effect settlement, and DNA purchased for value in good faith and took possession and expended substantial funds; accordingly CBI's caveat was not sustainable and the application to prevent lapse was dismissed.
16 Jun 2014
The caveats were sustained because there is an arguable basis that Worldwide Leisure Ltd held Huka Lodge as trustee from the outset (or that the property remained in the possession/control of the trustee van Heeren), placing the claim within s21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1950 so it is not time‑barred; accordingly a caveatable beneficial interest exists and the caveats will not lapse provided the applicant brings substantive proceedings or joins Worldwide Leisure Ltd to the existing proceeding.
18 Oct 2011
The court found the Marlin Place property is clearly part of the residuary estate and the executorship as to that asset has ended such that the respondents now hold it as trustees for the beneficiaries; accordingly the applicant, as a residuary beneficiary, has a present beneficial (caveatable) interest in that land and the caveat is maintainable. The caveat is therefore preserved and the parties are directed to devise a mechanism to permit sale without prejudicing the caveator.
17 Aug 2010
The applicant was not within s137(1) because he was not a beneficially interested person after the Family Court orders and he was not 'is transferring' since the transfer to trustees was completed; the Family Court removed him as trustee and transferred beneficial interest to the respondent, so the caveat could not be sustained.
11 Jun 2009
The High Court found there was a reasonably arguable case that Sanctuary Propvest and the Sanctuary Trust were operated as a façade by Armitage to enable acquisition and control of the property while bankrupt; it was reasonably arguable that the corporate veil could be pierced and that Sanctuary Propvest held the property on constructive trust for Armitage, such that the Official Assignee demonstrated an arguable equitable interest and the caveat should not lapse.
7 Apr 2009
The mutual wills and contemporaneous Deed created a floating constructive trust enforceable in equity, but that trust did not attach to or create a present equitable interest in the two specific properties because the Deed and wills did not identify those properties; accordingly the applicant has no caveatable proprietary interest in those titles and the application to prevent the caveat lapsing is dismissed.
24 Nov 2005
The application was refused because the caveator failed to establish an arguable case for the specific equitable interest alleged; the basis of the caveat (constructive trust from financial contributions) was inconsistent with the applicant's later reliance on an oral partnership agreement, the applicant's evidence lacked the required precision and certainty and the caveat did not sufficiently show how the claimed interest was derived from the registered proprietor as required by authority (Ball v Fawcett), therefore the caveat could not be sustained under s145A.