Lakeside Resort Development v Sunwoo & 3 Ors

In the matter of Lakeside Resort Development v Sunwoo & 3 Ors, the plaintiff, Lakeside Resort Development, sought an extension of a caveat lodged against the title of a lot of land. The plaintiff claimed that the second defendant held the land on trust for it and that the second defendant, along with the third parties, had attempted to develop the land without the plaintiff's consent, which was a breach of trust. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the necessary balance of convenience for an extension of the caveat.

The court was required to determine whether the caveat should be extended to prevent the defendants from further developing the land. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to prevent the defendants from borrowing money against the security of the land. The court had to balance the interests of the parties under the statutory scheme set forth in the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), which governs caveats.

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the second defendant held the land on trust for it and that the attempts to develop the land without the plaintiff's consent constituted a breach of trust. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat, as the evidence suggested that the attempts to develop the land would fail if the caveat was extended. The court also found that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to prevent the defendants from borrowing money against the security of the land, as this would further prejudice the plaintiff's position.

Accordingly, the court granted an order extending the caveat until further order and granted an injunction to prevent the defendants from borrowing money against the security of the land. The defendants were restrained from dealing with the land in a way that would prejudice the plaintiff's interests.