Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 480

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   LYNN -v- GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2025] WASC 480
CORAM:   SEAWARD J
HEARD:   24 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   24 OCTOBER 2025
PUBLISHED           :   13 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2212 of 2025
BETWEEN:   ELA LYNN
Plaintiff
AND
GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Real property - Caveats - Application to extend operation of caveat pursuant to s 138C(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) - Whether plaintiff has established a serious issue to be tried as to caveatable interest - Balance of convenience - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

Result:

Current caveat lapsed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138
Bride v The Registrar of Titles [2015] WASC 11
Leros Pty Ltd v Terara Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 22; (1992) 174 CLR 407
Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] [2025] WASC 310

SEAWARD J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar and formatting, and to add headings and full citations).

Introduction

The plaintiff, Ms Ela Lynn, has filed an originating summons, seeking an extension of a caveat numbered Q383296, over a property in Fairway Circle in Connolly, pursuant to s 138C of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA) (the TLA). The caveat expires at midnight tonight, 24 October 2025, so the matter has been heard on an urgent ex parte basis by me after usual court hours.
Ms Lynn has appeared by video‑link, and I have before me the following:
(a)the originating summons;
(b)the certificate of urgency;
(c)an outline of submissions;
(d)an amended statement of claim in the other Supreme Court matter (CIV 1553 of 2025); and
(e)an affidavit filed by Ms Lynn in CIV 1553 of 2025, which Ms Lynn sought leave to rely on, and that leave was granted by me.
I have a copy of the lease which is the subject of the claim for a proprietary interest, and I also have a copy of a decision of McGrath J in Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2],[1] which deals with the same lease, which I will return to.
[1] Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] [2025] WASC 310.

Factual background

In broad terms, the factual background to this matter is that Ms Lynn entered into a lease in relation to the property with Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd.
The lease was entered into on 22 December 2023, or that was the commencement date, and it was for a fixed‑term ending on 22 February 2025.
After Ms Lynn moved in, it seems that a number of disputes arose - or matters of disagreement arose between herself and Goodline Enterprises regarding the condition of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 480
Decision Date: 13 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case are Lynn, the plaintiff, and Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought an extension of a caveat lodged against the defendant's property, pursuant to section 138C(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA). The nature of the dispute revolves around whether the plaintiff has established a serious issue to be tried regarding a caveatable interest in the property, and whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of extending the caveat. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court had to determine if the plaintiff had a caveatable interest in the property that was sufficiently serious to warrant the continuation of the caveat. The court also had to weigh the balance of convenience to ascertain whether the plaintiff would suffer significant hardship if the caveat were not extended. The issues were heavily fact-specific and required the court to consider the evidence presented by both parties.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding a caveatable interest in the property. The evidence presented did not substantiate the claim of an interest in the property. Additionally, the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff as the defendant would suffer significant hardship if the caveat were to be extended. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the evidence presented.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to extend the operation of the caveat. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders