Hancock v Impresario Pty Limited

In the matter of Hancock v Impresario Pty Limited, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Hancock, lodged a caveat against certain dealings in relation to a property owned by the defendant, Impresario Pty Limited. Impresario sought to remove the caveat, arguing that the plaintiff had an obligation under a settlement agreement to do so. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence established that Hancock's obligation under the settlement agreement to remove the caveat was satisfied, specifically whether Hancock had to be satisfied with the purchaser prior to the exchange of contracts, or if the satisfaction could be assessed post-exchange.

The court considered the terms of the settlement agreement and the nature of the obligations it imposed on Hancock. It was established that Hancock had agreed to remove the caveat when the sale was completed to the reasonable satisfaction of Hancock, who was acting in good faith. The court held that the satisfaction could be assessed after the contracts had been exchanged, provided it was reasonable. The evidence showed that Hancock's dissatisfaction was not reasonable, as it was based on subjective and unsubstantiated concerns rather than any legitimate issue with the purchaser. The court found that Impresario had met its burden of demonstrating that Hancock's obligation had been fulfilled.

As a result, the court ordered the removal of Hancock's caveat and dismissed Impresario's application. The decision underscored the importance of assessing the reasonableness of a caveator's satisfaction in determining whether their obligations under a settlement agreement have been met. The court's ruling highlighted that a caveator's dissatisfaction must be based on valid grounds for the caveat to remain in place.