Granger and Collett

In *Granger and Collett*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a caveat lodged by the respondents, Granger and Collett, against a parcel of land owned by the applicant, was valid. The applicant sought to have the caveat removed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents had a caveatable interest in the land. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the respondents' claim to an equitable interest in the land, arising from an alleged agreement for sale, was sufficiently arguable to justify the continued existence of the caveat.

Strickland J found that the respondents had failed to establish a *prima facie* case of an equitable interest in the land. His Honour reasoned that the evidence did not demonstrate a concluded agreement for sale, noting the absence of essential terms and the presence of significant uncertainties regarding the proposed transaction. The Court applied the principles governing the grant of equitable remedies, emphasizing the need for a clear and definite agreement to support a claim for specific performance, which underpins a caveatable interest. Without such an agreement, the respondents' claim was too speculative to warrant the restraint on the applicant's title imposed by the caveat.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the caveat lodged by Granger and Collett be removed.