Fitzgibbons v Shaftsbury Pty Ltd

Fitzgibbons v Shaftsbury Pty Ltd involved a dispute over an application to extend the operation of a caveat lodged over a property. The applicant, Fitzgibbons, claimed an equitable interest in the property, arising from estoppel, which was based on representations made by the defendant's mother. Fitzgibbons sought to extend the caveat to cover a refinancing transaction and argued that the balance of convenience favoured the extension. The defendant, Shaftsbury Pty Ltd, argued that the caveat was defective in form and that the applicant did not have an arguable case.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the caveat had or may have substance, whether there was a serious question to be tried, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the extension of the caveat. The court was also required to determine whether the caveat was defective in form and whether the applicant's equitable interest was sufficiently discernible.

In deciding the matter, the court found that the applicant had an arguable case based on the evidence presented. The court noted that the detriment incurred by the applicant did not have to be of a grand scale and that the applicant's payment of one-quarter of the purchase price, along with the expenditure of labour and moneys on the property, was sufficient to infer reliance on the representations made by the defendant's mother. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the extension of the caveat, as the proposed refinancing was not jeopardised by the extension and the applicant was impecunious. The court held that the want of strict compliance with the formalities of lodging a caveat was not fatal and that the applicant's interest was sufficiently discernible.

The court granted the applicant's application to extend the operation of the caveat, subject to an undertaking as to damages. The court also noted that there was no significant risk of the defendant incurring pecuniary damage if the caveat was extended.