Kondylis v Bacic

The case of Kondylis v Bacic involved the plaintiff, Kondylis, who applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for the withdrawal of a caveat entered by the defendant, Bacic. The defendant's caveat was entered against the plaintiff's intention to sell a Torrens title property. The crux of the dispute was whether the defendant's claim constituted a caveatable interest under the relevant legislation. The plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of money to a builder from the proceeds of the property sale. The defendant argued that this agreement constituted a caveatable interest, which the court needed to determine.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's promise to pay money from the proceeds of the sale to the builder constituted a caveatable interest under the Real Property Act 1900 (Vic). The court had to consider whether such an interest in the proceeds of sale could be protected by a caveat. The court found that the plaintiff's agreement to pay money to the builder did not itself confer a caveatable interest, as it did not amount to an interest in the property or a charge upon it. Instead, the court determined that the plaintiff was required to do equity by transferring the money from the proceeds of the sale to a controlled money account. The court held that this did not constitute a caveatable interest.

The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant's caveat was invalid as it was not based on a caveatable interest. Consequently, the court ordered the withdrawal of the caveat and directed that the proceedings be transferred to the Local Court for further action. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the legislation and the nature of the interest claimed by the defendant. This case underscores the importance of understanding the specific requirements for a caveatable interest under the Real Property Act 1900 (Vic).