Lee v Song

Lee and Song were parties in a dispute regarding the sale of a property under the Torrens system. Lee, the registered proprietor, had listed the property for sale, and Song, the caveator, sought to extend the caveat to prevent the sale from proceeding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the caveat should be extended when the registered proprietor claimed that the extension would be futile as the caveators would not receive any proceeds from the sale. The court had to consider the balance of convenience and whether extending the caveat would cause undue hardship to the registered proprietor.

The court determined that the caveat should not be extended because extending it would cause undue hardship to the registered proprietor. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the registered proprietor in this instance, as the extension of the caveat would prevent the sale from proceeding and deprive the registered proprietor of the sale proceeds. The court found that the caveators would receive nothing from the sale, and therefore, the extension of the caveat would not provide them with any benefit. The court also considered that the registered proprietor had already made significant arrangements for the sale and that extending the caveat would cause unnecessary delay and inconvenience. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the registered proprietor, and the caveat should not be extended.

The court's decision was that the caveat should not be extended, and the sale of the property could proceed. The court did not make any further orders beyond this decision. The court's reasoning was based on the balance of convenience and the lack of benefit to the caveators if the caveat were to be extended. The court found that the registered proprietor had a legitimate interest in proceeding with the sale and that extending the caveat would cause undue hardship to them.