Barrett v King

In Barrett v King, the appeal was against an order extending the operation of a caveat over a parcel of land in Perth. The appellant, Mr Barrett, was the registered proprietor of the property, and the respondent, Ms King, had lodged a caveat over the property. The dispute arose after the Registrar of Titles issued a 21-day notice to the caveator under s 138B(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1994 (WA), prompting the caveator to apply to the Supreme Court for an extension of the caveat's operation under s 138C(1). The Supreme Court granted an extension until further order, and the appellant appealed this decision.

The primary legal issue was whether leave to appeal was required and if the order was interlocutory or final in nature, and whether it constituted an injunction. The court had to determine if the order was interlocutory, which would mean leave to appeal was required, or if it was a final order that could be appealed without such leave. Additionally, the court considered whether the order was an injunction, which would also impact the necessity of leave to appeal. The court was guided by previous case law, particularly Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill, which provided the framework for assessing whether the caveator's claim had or may have substance.

The court found that the order was interlocutory in nature, as it was expressed to be 'until further order', which indicated it was not a final determination of the merits of the caveator's claim. The court held that leave to appeal was required since the order was interlocutory and not an injunction. The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate substantial injustice if the order was left unreversed. The court emphasised that the principles applicable to a caveat removal application also applied to an application to extend the operation of a caveat. The court concluded that the principles set out in Perron Investments Pty Ltd v Tim Davies Landscaping Pty Ltd were applicable, reinforcing that a serious question to be tried must be shown, involving 'a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo' pending trial.

The final order was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.