Circuit Finance Australia Ltd v Bessounian

In the case of Circuit Finance Australia Ltd v Bessounian, the dispute involved the validity of a caveat against dealing lodged by the respondent, Mr. Bessounian, and an application by him to extend the operation of the caveat. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Circuit Finance Australia Ltd, the registered proprietor of a property, applied for a lapsing notice to be served on Mr. Bessounian, who had lodged the caveat. Following the service of the lapsing notice, Mr. Bessounian applied for an order extending the operation of the caveat, but he did not serve the application on Circuit Finance. Instead, he served it at the address provided by Circuit Finance in their application for the lapsing notice. The primary legal issue was whether the court should make an order under section 74K(3) of the Real Property Act 1990 (Vic) to dispense with the requirement to serve the application on the registered proprietor.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining whether to grant the order. The court held that the failure to serve the application on the registered proprietor did not necessarily bar the application for an extension of the caveat, as section 74K(3) allows the court to dispense with the requirement for service if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. The court noted that Mr. Bessounian had made a genuine attempt to serve the application and that Circuit Finance had provided an address for service in their application for the lapsing notice. The court found that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under section 74K(3) to dispense with the requirement to serve the application on the registered proprietor, and granted the order sought by Mr. Bessounian.

As a result of the court's decision, the operation of the caveat was extended, and Circuit Finance's application for a lapsing notice was effectively stayed. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of following the statutory requirements for service of applications in proceedings under the Real Property Act, but also recognised the need for flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The court's decision in this case provides guidance for parties involved in similar disputes concerning caveats and the operation of the Torrens system in Victoria.