Luxury Homes Pty Ltd v Danieli

Luxury Homes Pty Ltd brought an application against Danieli for an extension of a caveat and an interlocutory injunction restraining the sale of a property. The primary issue was whether the right to develop the land, have it sold, and receive a portion of the proceeds constituted a caveatable interest under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). Additionally, the court needed to determine if the contract between the parties was still in effect despite a clause providing for automatic termination. The balance of convenience was also considered in the context of granting an interlocutory injunction.

The court held that the plaintiff did not have a caveatable interest in the land. The court found that the right to develop, sell, and receive proceeds did not meet the criteria for a caveatable interest. Furthermore, the court determined that it was not seriously arguable that the contract was still on foot, as the clause providing for automatic termination was clear and unambiguous. The balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff, as the potential harm to the defendant outweighed any possible benefit to the plaintiff.

As a result, the application for an extension of the caveat and an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court found that there was no caveatable interest and that the contract was not still on foot. Consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.