Cui v Salas-Photiadis

Cui sought an order for the removal of a caveat lodged by Salas-Photiadis over a property. Salas-Photiadis lodged the caveat on the basis that they had an equitable interest in the property in the form of a charge. Cui argued that the caveat was invalid because it did not specify the nature of the equitable estate or interest claimed. The court was required to determine whether there was a material difference between an equitable charge and an equitable mortgage, and whether the caveat was invalid under section 74MA of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). The court was also required to determine whether the loan agreement between the first and second defendants was an “other agreement” under section 7D of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and whether the caveat was invalid by reason of this section.
The court held that there was no material difference between an equitable charge and an equitable mortgage and that the caveat did not fail to specify the nature of the equitable estate or interest claimed. The court also held that the loan agreement was not an “other agreement” under section 7D of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and that the caveat was not invalid by reason of this section. The court ordered that the caveat be removed and that Salas-Photiadis pay Cui’s costs of the proceeding.