Ghannam v BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd

The case of Ghannam v BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Ghannam, who had lodged a caveat against a lot in a strata development. BB&B Penrith Pty Ltd, the defendant, was the registered proprietor of the lot. The dispute centred around the costs associated with the proceedings after the parties had settled the issue of the caveat but not the costs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiff's caveat was fundamentally defective and whether its continuation would cause undue prejudice to the defendant. The caveat, which was intended to protect the plaintiff's interest, was found to be defective because it failed to specify the plaintiff's interest in the lot. Additionally, the court considered the broader implications of the caveat's continuation, such as the potential impediment to the defendant's ability to refinance the development and complete it, which in turn would prevent the conveyance of the lot to the plaintiff. The court held that the continuation of the caveat was highly inconvenient and would likely result in its withdrawal.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that the defendant had offered to protect the plaintiff's interest in the lot if the caveat was removed. Given the fundamental defect in the caveat and the potential for significant prejudice to the defendant, the court concluded that it was inevitable the caveat would have been ordered to be withdrawn. Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs, reflecting the inevitable outcome of the proceedings and the need to compensate the defendant for the costs incurred.