Matken Constructions Pty Ltd v James

Matken Constructions Pty Ltd (Matken) brought an action against James, claiming payment for building works carried out under a standard building contract. James, who owned the property, lodged a caveat against the property to prevent registration of a transfer of title. Matken sought the removal of the caveat, claiming that James had a caveatable interest under the contract but that this was limited to the amount Matken was owed. James argued that the caveat should remain in place until Matken provided security for the full amount of the claim, including interest and legal costs.

The court had to determine whether Matken's interest under the contract was caveatable and, if so, what amount should be paid into court as a condition of the caveat's removal. The court also needed to decide whether the payment into court should include interest and estimated legal costs.

The court found that Matken's interest under the contract was caveatable, but it was limited to the amount Matken was owed for the building works. The court ruled that the payment into court should include only the principal amount owed, excluding interest and estimated legal costs. The court emphasised that the interest and costs should be dealt with in the substantive proceedings, not as part of the condition for removing the caveat. The application for the removal of the caveat was stood over to allow for further submissions on the appropriate orders.