JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: BASHFORD -v- BASHFORD [2008] WASC 138
CORAM: BEECH J
HEARD: 2 JULY 2008
DELIVERED : 15 JULY 2008
FILE NO/S: CIV 1197 of 2008
BETWEEN: ALLEN JAMES BASHFORD
Plaintiff
AND
ROY BASHFORD
DULCIE JEAN MOORE BASHFORD
First DefendantsTHE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Conveyancing - Real property - Caveats - Application to extend operation of caveat - Whether plaintiff has established a serious issue to be tried as to caveatable interest - Balance of convenience - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Transfer of Land Act 1983 (WA) s 138C
Result:
Caveat extended
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr T Darbyshire
First Defendants : MR P J Hannan
Second Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Kott Gunning
First Defendants : Chris Baker & Associates
Second Defendant : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Benson v Benson [2008] WASC 13
Boni v Kingsoak Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 174
Brogue Tableau Pty Ltd v Binningup Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 179; (2007) 35 WAR 27
Castlemaine Toohey's Ltd v State of South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42
Devere Holdings Pty Ltd v Verge [2006] WASC 297
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331
J and H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546
Kerabee Park Pty Ltd v Daley [1978] 2 NSWLR 222
Kingstone Constructions Pty Ltd v Crispel Pty Ltd (1991) 5 BPR 11987
Kuper v Keywest Constructions Pty Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 419
Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 407
Lydon v Ryding [2002] WASC 308
Midland Brick Company Pty Ltd v Welsh [2006] WASC 122; (2006) 32 WAR 287
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Powell v In De Braekt [2006] WASC 264
Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Mila Properties Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 30
Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387
BEECH J:
Introduction
The plaintiff applies for an order extending the operation of a caveat over property owned by the first defendants.
The plaintiff's application was commenced by originating summons dated 29 February 2008.
On 29 February 2008, Le Miere J made orders which included an order extending the operation of the caveat until 10 March 2008. On 10 March 2008 his Honour made an order extending the operation of the caveat to 7 April 2008. Thereafter, orders were made by consent extending the operation of the caveat until the hearing of the plaintiff's application.
I will begin by outlining the facts established by the affidavits which have been filed by the parties. Secondly, I will outline the principles relevant…
Continue reading Bashford v Bashford
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
- Case
- [2008] WASC 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of a caveatable interest in the land and whether the balance of convenience supported the extension of the caveat. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's claim had substance and whether there was a genuine proprietary interest in the land that warranted the protection of a caveat.
The court held that a caveatable interest must be a proprietary interest in land, as established in Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd. The court noted that on an application for an extension of a caveat, the onus is on the caveator to show that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of such an interest. The court also recognised that the balance of convenience is a factor to be considered but emphasised that the primary purpose of a caveat is to protect a proprietary interest. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated an arguable case regarding the existence of a caveatable interest, and therefore, the balance of convenience favoured extending the operation of the caveat. The court also noted that while there was limited power to amend the terms of a caveat, it could not alter the interest claimed.
In conclusion, the court granted the plaintiff's application to extend the operation of the caveat, finding that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of a caveatable interest and that the balance of convenience favoured the extension. The court's decision underscored the importance of demonstrating a genuine proprietary interest in land when seeking to protect it through a caveat.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Section 137 of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) enables a person who claims 'any estate or interest' in land to lodge a caveat. By its nature, a caveatable interest must be a proprietary interest in land: Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42, 50. A caveat is a form of statutory injunction preventing registration of a dealing against land until the caveator has been given a reasonable opportunity to justify the caveat by pursuing such remedies as he or she may have: J and H Just (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Bank of New South Wales (1971) 125 CLR 546, 552, 558; Custom Credit (44 ‑ 45); Brogue Tableau Pty Ltd v Binningup Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 179; (2007) 35 WAR 27 [68]. Section 138C(2) of the Transfer of Land Act is in the following terms.On the hearing of an application under subsection (1), the Supreme Court ‑ (a)if satisfied that the caveator’s claim has or may have substance -(i)may make an order extending the operation of the caveat for such period as is specified in the order;(ii)may make an order extending the operation of the caveat until the further order of the court; or(iii)may make such other orders as it thinks fit concerning the caveat or the land in respect of which the caveat was lodged;(b)if not satisfied that the caveator’s claim has or may have substance, shall dismiss the application; and(c)may make such ancillary orders in relation to the application as it thinks fit. It can be seen that the power of the court to make orders in favour of a caveator arises only if the court is satisfied that the caveator's claim 'has or may have substance'. The 'caveator's claim' refers to the claim by the caveator of the estate or interest that is claimed in the caveat: Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Mila Properties Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 30 [17]. On an application for an extension, the onus is on the caveator to demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether a caveatable interest exists: Custom Credit (48); Jandric v Jandric [1999] WASC 22 [5]. In an application for an extension of caveat it is not appropriate to attempt to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit: Porter v McDonald [1984] WAR 271, 276. The caveat will not be removed unless the claim to an estate or interest in the land appears to be without foundation: Porter v McDonald (276); Custom Credit (48). The balance of convenience is a factor to be considered in an application to extend the operation of a caveat. However, interlocutory removal of a caveat will be unusual where an arguable case as to the existence of a caveatable interest has been demonstrated. That is because the purpose of a caveat is the protection of a proprietary interest. Removal of the caveat will, in many cases, have the effect of destroying the benefit of the proprietary interest claimed in the caveat: Custom Credit (50). On an application to extend a caveat there is a limited power to allow the terms of the caveat to be amended. Amendment may be permitted so as to enable the caveat to express better or more fully the interest which is claimed in the caveat. However, amendment is not permitted so as to alter the interest which is claimed and therefore claim a different interest: Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Mila Properties Pty Ltd [17]; Midland Brick Company Pty Ltd v Welsh [2006] WASC 122; (2006) 32 WAR 287 [397] ‑ [399]; Devere Holdings Pty Ltd v Verge [2006] WASC 297 [22]; Benson v Benson [2008] WASC 13 [31] ‑ [33].