Como v Helmers

The case of Como v Helmers involved a dispute between siblings over a testamentary gift of land located in South Perth. Mr Como lodged a caveat over the property in 2011, claiming an interest in the land, but his application to extend the operation of the caveat was dismissed. Ms Helmers sought costs for the proceedings, and the matter before the court was whether Mr Como should be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Como had established a prima facie case that he had an estate or interest in the South Perth property, which would have justified an extension of the caveat. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Mr Como's undertaking as to damages was adequate, and whether Mr Como should be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The court considered the principles established in Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Ravi Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 42 in assessing the balance of convenience in relation to the caveat.

The court found that Mr Como had not established a prima facie case that he had an estate or interest in the land, and therefore, the balance of convenience did not favour the extension of the operation of the caveat. However, the court did accept that Mr Como's undertaking as to damages was adequate. The court also rejected Ms Helmers' application for indemnity costs, but granted her leave to make a further application seeking a special costs order. The court found that Mr Como should be ordered to pay costs of the originating summons without reference to the limits provided for in the Legal Practitioners (Supreme Court) (Contentious Business) Report and Determination 2010.