HUDSON & HOPGOOD

In *Hudson & Hopgood*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a caveat lodged by the respondents, Hudson and Hopgood, against a parcel of land owned by the appellant, was valid. The appellant sought to have the caveat removed, alleging it was lodged without reasonable cause. The dispute centred on the nature of the respondents' alleged interest in the land, which they claimed arose from an oral agreement to purchase the property.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents had established a sufficient equitable interest in the land to support the lodgement of a caveat. This required the Court to consider the requirements for the creation of an equitable interest in land arising from an oral agreement for sale, particularly in light of the *Statute of Frauds* and the doctrine of part performance. The Court also had to assess whether the respondents' actions constituted sufficient part performance to take the oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds.

Carew J found that the respondents had not established a sufficient equitable interest in the land. His Honour reasoned that while an oral agreement for the sale of land could, in principle, give rise to an equitable interest, the respondents' conduct did not amount to sufficient part performance. The actions relied upon by the respondents, such as inspecting the property and obtaining a valuation, were considered by the Court to be preparatory steps rather than acts unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement. Consequently, the Court held that the caveat was not validly supported by an equitable interest.

The Court ordered that the caveat lodged by the respondents be removed.