Bashford v Bashford

Bashford v Bashford was a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a dispute over the validity of a caveat lodged over a parcel of land. The plaintiff, Bashford, sought an extension of the operation of a caveat that had been lodged by the defendant, also Bashford, over a property. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established a serious issue to be tried regarding the existence of a caveatable interest and whether the balance of convenience favoured the extension of the caveat.

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.