Hamdan v Widodo

The plaintiff, Jamal Hamdan, sought an extension of a caveat over a property owned by the defendant, Sri Wahjuni Widodo. The caveat had been lodged to protect the plaintiff's interest as the purchaser under a contract of sale for the property. Widodo opposed the extension of the caveat, arguing that Hamdan had not satisfied the finance conditions of the contract and that, as a result, the contract was terminated. The central legal issues were whether Hamdan had a caveatable interest in the property and whether the caveat was correctly formulated. Jenkins J found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether Hamdan had an equitable interest in the property as a purchaser under the uncompleted contract for sale. However, the caveat was defective as it described the claimed interest as an estate in fee simple, whereas Hamdan's interest was equitable. The court held it did not have the power to amend the caveat to correct this defect. Instead, Jenkins J granted an injunction to protect Hamdan's interest, subject to the condition that Hamdan promptly commence proceedings to determine whether he has an estate or interest in the land. The injunction was to remain in place until further order, and either party could apply to discharge or vary the injunction on seven days' notice.