Li v Yang

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Li, the respondent, lodged a caveat over a property purchased by Yang, the applicant. Li asserted that he had an equitable interest in the property and that Yang held it on trust for him. Yang applied for an order that the caveat be removed, claiming that the purchase price was transferred by a third party, not by her. Yang also argued that Queensland was not the proper jurisdiction for the proceeding and that the Court was precluded from deciding the matter due to issue estoppel. The court was required to determine if there was a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured removing the caveat.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the equitable interest claimed by Li. However, it concluded that the balance of convenience favoured keeping the caveat in place. The court held that issue estoppel did not preclude it from deciding the matter, as the previous decision related to a different issue. As for jurisdiction, the court found that it had the authority to hear the application despite Yang's arguments to the contrary. Given these findings, the court dismissed Yang's application for the removal of the caveat.

The court also considered the costs application. Li sought indemnity costs, arguing that Yang's conduct of the application had unnecessarily prolonged the hearing. Yang contended that costs should be in the cause. The court ruled that Yang should pay Li's costs incurred up to 12 June 2025 on a standard basis. For costs incurred after that date, Yang was ordered to pay on an indemnity basis. These orders were to remain unenforceable until judgment was delivered in the proceeding.

In summary, the court dismissed Yang's application to remove the caveat and ordered her to pay Li's costs on a standard basis up to 12 June 2025 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.