Coco C'Bay Association (Inc) v Paddison

The plaintiff, Coco C'Bay Association, sought an extension of a caveat it had lodged over the defendants' property. The defendants, Murray Clive Paddison and Dawn Michelle Eales, opposed the application and argued that the caveat should not be extended as it was not justified. The primary issue for the court was whether the interest claimed in the caveat had or may have substance, such that the caveat should be extended under s 138C(2) of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA). The court found that the Buyer Covenant deed signed by the parties created a charge over the defendants' property, which secured the defendants' obligations under the covenant. The court held that the charge could secure non-monetary obligations and potentially extend to damages flowing from the failure to perform those obligations. Given the importance of the obligations to the plaintiff's interests, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat. The court ordered the extension of the caveat until further order of the court.

The main issues were:

1. Whether the interest claimed in the caveat had or may have substance so as to justify the extension of the caveat under s 138C(2) of the Transfer of Land Act.

2. Whether the charge created by the Buyer Covenant deed could secure non-monetary obligations.

3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff on all issues, determining that the charge secured not only monetary obligations but also potentially non-monetary obligations and damages for failure to perform those obligations. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat, given the importance of the obligations to the plaintiff's interests.

The final orders were that the operation of the caveat be extended until further order of the court. The court invited submissions from the parties in relation to costs.