Kitanovski v Ibrahim (No 2)

In Kitanovski v Ibrahim (No 2), the plaintiff sought orders to remove a caveat from a property. The defendant was the vendor of the property, and the second defendant was the person who had lodged the caveat. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of the property, where the sale price was significantly below market value. The plaintiff, who had already purchased the property, sought to remove the caveat in order to finalise the transaction. The plaintiff was successful in their application to remove the caveat, but only after offering to pay money into court to serve as alternative security for the caveators.

The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to order the second defendant to pay the costs of the caveators. The plaintiff argued that the second defendant was responsible for the costs, as she was the one who lodged the caveat. However, the court held that the second defendant was not responsible for the sale being at an undervalue, and it was doubtful that she had the ability to herself have the caveats removed. The court held that it was appropriate to order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the caveators, as the plaintiff was the one who had benefitted from the removal of the caveat.

In summary, the court held that it was appropriate for the plaintiff to pay the costs of the caveators, but not appropriate to order the second defendant to pay those costs. The second defendant was not responsible for the sale being at an undervalue, and it was doubtful that she had the ability to herself have the caveats removed. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining who should bear the costs of litigation.