Khaihra v Agarwal - [2025] NSWSC 1276

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Khaihra v Agarwal [2025] NSWSC 1276
Hearing dates: 22 – 23 October 2025
Date of orders: 24 October 2025
Decision date: 24 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
Caveat extended subject to conditions, see [43].

Catchwords:
REAL PROPERTY – where the plaintiff seeks an extension of a caveat – where the defendants entered into a contract to sell the property – where there is no dispute that there is a seriously arguable case – balance of convenience favours extending caveat for 6 months subject to conditions

Legislation Cited:
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Lawton Pty Ltd v FHMC Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1165; 163 IPR 266
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 3) (1998) 195 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 30
Sutherland v Vale [2008] NSWSC 759
Wesco Ventures Pty Ltd v Cecil Developments Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 98

Texts Cited:
N.A.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gurbachan Singh Khaihra (plaintiff)
Rajeev Agarwal (first defendant)
Xiao Lan Ju (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Reynolds (plaintiff)
P Lin (defendants)
Solicitors:
Remington & Co (plaintiff)
Project Lawyers (defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/398559
Publication restriction: N.A.

Judgment – Ex Tempore (Revised From the Transcript)

The plaintiff makes an urgent application for the extension of a caveat lodged in relation to land located at 167 Annangrove Road, Annangrove. In the alternative she seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the land or the opportunity to lodge a new caveat. Failing an extension, the caveat that is currently lodged will lapse at 5pm today.
For the reasons I am about to give, I propose to make orders extending the caveat but subject to conditions.
The defendants are the registered proprietors of the property. They have entered into a contract to sell the property. The sale is scheduled to complete on 3 November 2025. The defendants’ ability to complete the sale is affected by the caveat.

Principles to be Applied

There is no dispute as to the relevant principles to be applied on this application. They are identified by Brereton J in Sutherland v Vale [2008] NSWSC 759 at [11]. In short, the test to be applied on an application to extend the operation of a caveat under s 74K of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) is the test for the granting of an interlocutory injunction. Two issues must be addressed. First, whether the caveat has or may have substance, which encompasses the concept of a seriously arguable case. The second is the balance of convenience.
In this case there is no dispute that the caveat has or may have substance. That is, there is no dispute that there is a seriously arguable case. The question is whether the balance of convenience favours an extension of the caveat.

Background facts

The background to the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants has some complexity and is strongly disputed. It is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Khaihra v Agarwal

Details

AGLC: Khaihra v Agarwal [2025] NSWSC 1276
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1276
Decision Date: 24 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Khaihra v Agarwal, the plaintiff sought an extension of a caveat lodged against a property located in Western Australia. The defendants, who had entered into a contract to sell the property, opposed the plaintiff's application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a seriously arguable case and whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat.

The court found that the plaintiff had indeed presented a seriously arguable case. The defendants had entered into a contract to sell the property without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent, which raised questions about the validity of the sale. Additionally, the plaintiff had demonstrated that they had a legitimate interest in the property, as they had previously lodged a caveat. The court considered the balance of convenience and determined that it favoured extending the caveat for six months, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the plaintiff providing security for the defendants' costs, should the caveat be ultimately determined to be invalid.

The court's decision was based on the need to balance the interests of both parties. Extending the caveat would protect the plaintiff's interest in the property while allowing the defendants to proceed with the sale, subject to the conditions imposed by the court. The six-month period provided the plaintiff with sufficient time to pursue their legal claims and seek resolution of the dispute. The court's ruling ultimately aimed to achieve a fair outcome for both parties involved in the dispute.

Orders