Ermanno Giurina v Greater Geelong City Council and Registrar of Titles

Ermanno Giurina has appealed against orders of the Supreme Court of Victoria that dismissed his application for leave to appeal against orders removing caveats from the title to a property at Geelong. The primary judge had determined that the caveats were invalid and should be removed. Giurina sought to appeal the decision on the basis that there was a prima facie case for proprietary estoppel, and that the primary judge had erred in considering the balance of convenience. The Greater Geelong City Council and the Registrar of Titles sought to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, arguing that Giurina had no standing to lodge the caveats and that his proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

The court had to determine whether Giurina had standing to appeal the orders for removal of the caveats, and whether he had a prima facie case for proprietary estoppel. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge had erred in considering the balance of convenience and whether the appeal had a real prospect of success. The court found that Giurina did not have standing to appeal because he was not adversely affected by the caveats. The court also found that Giurina had not established a prima facie case for proprietary estoppel. The court held that the primary judge had not erred in considering the balance of convenience, and that the appeal had no real prospect of success.

The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The orders for removal of the caveats were upheld. The court found that the words ‘any person who is adversely affected by any such caveat’ in section 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 were not limited to persons who have ‘an interest in the land’ or have a ‘power to deal directly with the land’, as contended by Giurina. The court held that a judgment creditor who obtains a warrant of execution over property is a person affected by caveats on the title of the property.