BURTON & WATERS

In the matter of *Burton & Waters*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned an application by the husband to borrow against the former matrimonial home to facilitate investment, which was opposed by the wife. The wife had lodged a caveat over the property.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant the husband's application to remove the wife's caveat, thereby permitting him to borrow against the property, notwithstanding the wife's opposition. The court was required to consider the existing equity in the parties' assets in determining this issue.

Cronin J reasoned that there was ample equity in the parties' assets. The court made orders by consent, reflecting minutes of proposed orders. These orders directed the wife to withdraw her caveat within seven days. However, the wife was granted liberty to relodge the caveat, subject to satisfying the relevant Land Registry Office of a caveatable interest. Concurrently, the husband was restrained from taking administrative action to remove the caveat until further order. The court also made directions regarding the engrossment and delivery of the minutes, transcription of reasons, and the setting out of particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention. Further orders addressed the listing of the matter for final hearing, attendance of parties and legal practitioners, advice from the Independent Children’s Lawyer, completion of discovery and disclosure, participation in negotiation or mediation, provision of cost statements, and a waiver of the conciliation conference requirement conditional upon mediation.