Al-Jaradat v Ghunmat - [2025] NSWSC 1283

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Al-Jaradat v Ghunmat
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWSC 1283
Hearing Date(s):	29 October 2025
Date of Orders:	30 October 2025
Decision Date:	30 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Duty List
Before:	Slattery J
Decision:	See paragraph [40]
Catchwords:	LAND LAW — Caveats — Removal of caveat – plaintiff’s application to remove defendant’s caveat – where the parties have settled family law proceedings – where the form of the caveat insufficiently describes defendant’s interest in the property – where the defendant allegedly filed the caveat by reason of the plaintiff’s default of the family law settlement orders - where both parties are in breach of the settlement agreement – relief granted to the plaintiff, conditional on the defendant having the opportunity to challenge allegations against the plaintiff about undervaluing the property.
Legislation Cited:	Real Property Act 1900, ss 74K(2), 74L Real Property Regulations 2019
Cases Cited:	ATF Group Pty Limited v Melek [2023] NSWSC 333 Brose v Slade [2022] NSWSC 1785 Comserv (No 210) Proprietary Limited v Ristevski [2022] NSWSC 821 Rahman v Rahman [2025] NSWCA 219 Sutherland v Vale [2008] NSWSC 759 Woodsman Pty Ltd v Jozic [2018] NSWSC 1311
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Ahlam Nayef Mahmoud Al-Jaradat Defendant: Laith Mohammad Othman Ghunmat
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: G Edwards Defendant: M Mando Solicitors: Plaintiff: Sterling Legal Defendant: (direct brief)
File Number(s):	2025/406635
Publication Restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

The plaintiff and the defendant in these proceedings are, respectively, the wife, Ahlam Mayef Mahmoud Al Jaradat, and the husband, Laith Mohammad Othman Ghunmat, in certain family law proceedings. The proceedings come to this Court by way of a Summons seeking the removal of a caveat from one of the properties owned by the marital couple, a property in Strathfield ("the Strathfield property").
The husband and the wife agreed to resolve their differences in relation to their marital property by way of a settlement agreement on 15 April 2025 ("the settlement agreement"), disposing of all remaining issues between them under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 79. A dispute has now broken out between them about the implementation of the settlement agreement, which led to the husband lodging caveat number 8T501608 over the Strathfield property on 9 October 2025. The wife now applies for its removal, so that a sale transaction can take place.
Some background is required. The proceedings came on for hearing yesterday afternoon at about 4pm in the Equity (Duty) List. Ms G Edwards of counsel appears for the wife, instructed by Sterling Legal and Mr M Mando of counsel for the husband, by a direct access brief. The Court has been much assisted by the legal representatives on both sides.
Although this case presents as a contest about a caveat, as will be seen, the Court is attempting to take a broader view to try to reduce further conflicts between the parties. The Court has been told that the family law proceedings other than the caveat issues have…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Al-Jaradat v Ghunmat

Details

AGLC: Al-Jaradat v Ghunmat [2025] NSWSC 1283
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1283
Decision Date: 30 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Al-Jaradat v Ghunmat involved a dispute over the removal of a caveat from property. The plaintiff sought to have a caveat filed by the defendant removed from the register of titles. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the caveat should be removed given that the parties had settled their family law proceedings and whether the form of the caveat sufficiently described the defendant’s interest in the property. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant filed the caveat due to the plaintiff’s default in the family law settlement orders and whether both parties were in breach of the settlement agreement.

The court examined the nature and purpose of the caveat, noting that it was filed by the defendant allegedly due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the family law settlement orders. The court found that the form of the caveat did not adequately describe the defendant’s interest in the property, which was a critical requirement for its validity. Despite this, the court acknowledged that the defendant had a legitimate concern regarding the settlement orders and the potential undervaluation of the property. The court also considered the mutual breach of the settlement agreement by both parties, which complicated the issue of relief. Ultimately, the court decided that the caveat should be removed but granted relief to the plaintiff on the condition that the defendant had the opportunity to challenge the allegations against the plaintiff regarding the undervaluation of the property.

The court’s decision balanced the need to uphold the requirements of caveat law with the circumstances of the family law settlement and the mutual breaches by both parties. The relief granted to the plaintiff was conditional, ensuring that the defendant could address the allegations concerning the property’s valuation. This approach aimed to provide a fair resolution while maintaining the integrity of the property registration system. The final orders of the court mandated the removal of the caveat from the register, subject to the defendant’s right to contest the specific allegations made by the plaintiff.

Orders