Grima v Grima

[2005] NSWSC 180

CITATION:	Grima v Grima [2005] NSWSC 180
HEARING DATE(S):	8 & 10 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	10 February 2005
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Hamilton J
DECISION:	Extension of operation of caveat refused.

CATCHWORDS:	CONVEYANCING [185] - Land titles under the Torrens system - Caveats against dealings - Form of caveat - Statement of estate or interest - Statement reveals caveator relies on interest which is not caveatable.
PARTIES:	Anne Theresa Frances Grima (P) Charles Paul Grima (D1) Mary Theresa Grima (D2)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 1392/05
COUNSEL:	Self represented (P) N Newton (Ds)
SOLICITORS:	Self represented (P) Conditsis & Associates (Ds)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2005

1392/05 ANNE T F GRIMA v CHARLES PAUL GRIMA & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for extension of a caveat. It arises from an unfortunate situation where the plaintiff is a daughter and the defendants are her father and her mother. There is a history between them which, according to the affidavit she has filed, has led the plaintiff to believe that she has an entitlement to the subject property (“the property”), or some of it.

2 In caveat 32985S, which she has lodged over the property, she has stated the nature of the estate or interest in land which she claims as being that the property belongs to her, which, whilst it is not stated with legal nicety or technicality, I take to be a claim to a beneficial estate in fee simple.

3 She claims that estate or interest not by virtue of any instrument but, as appears in the caveat, by virtue of certain facts set out in an annexure to the caveat. This states in shorter form the facts about the relationship between her and her parents which are stated in her affidavit as giving her a claim to the property. There is, unfortunately for her, nothing in the statement of facts in either the caveat or the affidavit which establishes a claim by the plaintiff to a beneficial interest in the property. In those circumstances, the caveat is bad on the face of it and cannot be extended.

4 It may be that there are avenues available to Ms Grima, particularly if she can obtain legal assistance to prepare a better drawn caveat, or to make an appropriate claim against the defendants with perhaps a claim for interlocutory relief, but it is not for me on this application to pass on those matters. In these circumstances, there is nothing I can do but order that the summons be dismissed, and I make that order.

5 The defendants’ counsel, having specific instructions not to seek costs, the order that I shall make as to costs will be that there be no order as to the costs of these proceedings. My orders are:

(1) Summons dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.

**********