Juric and Halmi

In *Juric and Halmi*, the applicant sought to maintain a caveat lodged against the respondent's property. The dispute concerned the validity of the caveat and the applicant's underlying claim to an interest in the property. The matter came before Judge Lapthorn.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient caveatable interest in the respondent's property to justify the continued existence of the caveat. This required the court to consider the nature of the applicant's alleged proprietary interest and whether it met the threshold for a caveatable claim.

Judge Lapthorn reasoned that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a proper caveatable interest. The court applied the principles governing the lodgement and maintenance of caveats, which require a claimant to show a *prima facie* case of a proprietary interest in the land. Having found that no such interest was established, the court concluded that the caveat should not remain.

Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant must take all necessary steps to remove the caveat from the respondent's property within 28 days. All outstanding applications relating to the caveat were also dismissed.