Mastronardo v Remo West Ryde Pty Ltd

In the matter of Mastronardo v Remo West Ryde Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to remove a caveat lodged against their property in Abbotsford. The plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the property, claimed that the caveat was based on an alleged agreement dated 1 August 2022 between the plaintiff and the defendant company. The plaintiff’s son, who had previously filed a similar caveat in related proceedings, was permitted limited leave to represent the defendant company. The son had accepted in those related proceedings that he had no caveatable interest in the property.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the defendant company had a caveatable interest in the property, as asserted in the caveat. The court examined the details of the alleged agreement and the evidence provided by the parties. The court noted that there was no clear evidence of any discussions between the plaintiff and the son that would give rise to a caveatable interest in the property. The son's affidavit did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of a constructive trust or any other form of interest in the property. The monies advanced by the company in 2009 were stated to be "on terms to be agreed," but there was no evidence of any agreement or discussions regarding the terms. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the assertion that the defendant company had a caveatable interest in the property.

The court ordered the caveat to be removed, finding that the defendant company had not established a caveatable interest. The court also refused the defendant's application for an adjournment, noting that the son's prior involvement in related proceedings against the plaintiff was part of the relevant context. The court found that the son had recently been involved in the matter and that there was no sufficient evidence supporting a caveatable interest as claimed in the caveat or in the affidavit in support of the adjournment. The final order of the court was for the caveat to be removed and the proceedings to proceed without further delay.