Cousins Securities Pty Ltd v CEC Group Ltd

Cousins Securities Pty Ltd appealed against the decision of the primary judge to find that the respondents, CEC Group Ltd and others, had not failed to bring proceedings to establish their interest under a caveat within the three-month period prescribed by s 126(4) of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). The respondents had lodged a caveat against registration of any instrument over the land which was the subject of a joint venture between Cousins Securities Pty Ltd and the first respondent. The appellant had repaid the debt owing on the land and had the mortgage assigned to it. The respondents sought to establish their interest under the caveat, but the primary judge found that they had not done so within the prescribed period. The appellant also argued that the caveat was too wide in scope as it covered the entire Lot 9, whereas the respondents' interest was only in 2,521 square metres.

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had failed to start proceedings to establish their interest under the caveat within three months, and whether the caveat was too wide in scope. The court also had to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the respondents' entitlement to the interest claimed under the caveat. The court had to consider the provisions of s 126(4) of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), which requires that proceedings to establish an interest under a caveat must be started within three months. The court also had to consider the extent to which the caveat was valid, and whether it was too wide in scope.

The court found that there was no error in the primary judge's finding that the respondents had not failed to start proceedings to establish their interest under the caveat within three months. The court held that the respondents had not taken any steps to establish their interest under the caveat within the prescribed period, and that the caveat had therefore lapsed. The court also found that the caveat was too wide in scope as it covered the entire Lot 9, whereas the respondents' interest was only in 2,521 square metres. However, the court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to the respondents' entitlement to the interest claimed under the caveat, and that the primary judge had not erred in finding this. The court varied the order of the primary judge to include an undertaking as to damages by the appellant and dismissed the appeal with costs.