Ageist Pty Ltd v Lilly (Lila) Stojcevski

Agist Pty Ltd sought to remove a caveat over a property from Lilly (Lila) Stojcevski, which had been lodged in relation to a contract of sale entered into on 11 December 2020. The settlement date had been delayed since February 2021. There were several prior caveats lodged and claims made by the Defendants and related parties on and in respect of the property. The Court had previously ordered that all caveats lodged by the Defendants (and other related parties, including the Defendants’ mother) be removed. The Plaintiff argued there was no serious question to be tried and no injunction would be granted to the caveators to preclude the sale, and that the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat. The property was subject to two registered mortgages, and the debt under the second mortgage would not be satisfied by sale of the property. The Defendants claimed an equitable interest.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a lack of utility in the caveat, whether the caveat was bona fide, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat. The Court held that there was no utility in the caveat because there could be no balance over which the Defendants could make a claim, and that the caveat was not bona fide. The Court further found that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the progress of the sale.

The Court dismissed the caveat and ordered that it be removed from the register. The Court held that the caveat had no utility as there was no balance over which the Defendants could make a claim, and that the caveat was not bona fide. The Court further found that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the progress of the sale. The Court ordered that the caveat be removed from the register and that the Plaintiff be paid its costs of the application.