Maryska v Mason

The matter of Maryska v Mason concerned a dispute regarding the validity of a caveat lodged against the registration of a new dealing. The plaintiff, Maryska, held an equitable life interest in a property, which she claimed arose from proprietary estoppel. The defendant, Mason, sought to refinance the property and required the caveat to be removed to proceed with the new mortgage. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The central legal issues revolved around whether the plaintiff's claim of an equitable life interest was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the continuation of the caveat. The court had to consider the merits of the plaintiff's proprietary estoppel claim and weigh it against the defendant's need to refinance the property.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim of an equitable life interest did indeed constitute a serious question to be tried. The court found that the evidence supported the possibility of a proprietary estoppel claim, which could potentially entitle the plaintiff to a life interest in the property. However, the court also considered the balance of convenience. While the plaintiff was not opposed to clearing the title to allow the new mortgage to be registered, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the continuation of the caveat. The court reasoned that the defendant's need to refinance the property and the potential for construction costs to arise under the claim outweighed the plaintiff's willingness to clear the title.

The court ordered that the caveat against the registration of the new mortgage be continued, allowing the defendant to proceed with the refinancing of the property. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the interests of both parties and finding a balance between the need for financial stability and the potential for an equitable claim to be recognised.