Bowles v Stratton (No.2)

In *Bowles v Stratton (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a caveat lodged by the plaintiff, Mr. Bowles, against land owned by the defendant, Ms. Stratton, was valid. The dispute arose from a prior agreement for the sale of the land, which had been terminated by Ms. Stratton. Mr. Bowles sought to prevent the sale of the land to a third party by lodging the caveat, asserting an equitable interest in the property.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Bowles possessed a caveatable interest in the land at the time the caveat was lodged. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the termination of the sale agreement by Ms. Stratton extinguished any equitable interest Mr. Bowles might have held, and whether the terms of the agreement precluded the assertion of such an interest.

Judge Hartnett reasoned that the termination of the sale agreement by Ms. Stratton, in accordance with its terms, effectively brought to an end any equitable interest Mr. Bowles may have had in the land. The Court found that the agreement did not create an equitable interest that survived its termination. Consequently, Mr. Bowles did not have a valid caveatable interest at the time the caveat was lodged.

The Court ordered that the caveat lodged by Mr. Bowles be removed.