Circuit Finance Australia Ltd v Registrar of Titles

Circuit Finance Australia Ltd sought a declaration that a caveat it lodged over a property was valid, and not subject to automatic lapse. The Registrar of Titles treated the caveat as a lapsing caveat, and Circuit Finance challenged this. The court had to decide whether an equitable mortgagee could lodge a non-lapsing caveat if the registered owner's consent was deposited with the caveat. This involved interpreting sections 122, 122(2) and 126 of the Land Title Act 1994. The court considered the purpose of section 126 and whether it applied to caveats where the owner's consent was lodged with the caveat.

The court found that section 126 was intended to ensure that caveators with an interest in the property take reasonable steps to establish their interest in a timely manner. The court found that the consent of the registered owner deposited with the caveat was sufficient to satisfy section 126, as it indicated the owner's agreement to the caveat and the mortgagee's interest. The court held that the caveat lodged by Circuit Finance was a non-lapsing caveat as the consent of the owner was deposited when the caveat was lodged. The court found in favour of Circuit Finance, and declared that the caveat lodged by the applicant over the property was a caveat to which sections 126(2) to 126(7) applied. The Registrar of Titles' treatment of the caveat as a lapsing caveat was incorrect.