Mission Development v Rhett

Mission Development Pty Ltd sought to set aside a caveat lodged by Rhett. The property in dispute was the subject of a caveat that was preventing the applicant from selling the property to another party. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Land Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a serious issue to be tried and whether, on the balance of convenience, the caveat could be set aside. The court also needed to determine whether the failure to stamp a contract was fatal and whether the caveat could be removed due to the contract's lack of stamp duty. The applicant argued that it had entered into other contracts and needed funds from the property in dispute, making it necessary to set aside the caveat. The respondent contended that the applicant had failed to stamp a contract, which formed the basis of the caveat, and that the failure to stamp was fatal.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried as the respondent's case was not without merit. The court also found that the failure to stamp the contract was not fatal, as the unstamped contract could still be relied upon. However, the court did not consider the failure to stamp to be a decisive factor in determining whether the caveat could be removed. The court held that, on the balance of convenience, the caveat should not be set aside as the respondent's interest in the property was not outweighed by the applicant's need for funds. The court concluded that the caveat could not be removed due to the unstamped contract. The application was dismissed, and costs were reserved.