Moon v Wyniard

The plaintiffs, Moon, sought to extend a caveat they had lodged against a parcel of land against the defendants, Wyniard. The dispute arose from a contract for sale of land, initially executed in the name of the plaintiffs' daughter as the purchaser. The defendants' solicitors had altered the purchaser's name to the plaintiffs themselves, and subsequently, the defendants executed a document confirming their preparedness to settle the sale with the plaintiffs. Despite this, the defendants did not proceed with the settlement and instead entered into a new contract for sale with another party who subsequently lodged a caveat. The plaintiffs then lodged their caveat, and the defendants applied for its removal, arguing that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for authorisation or ratification of the alterations made by the defendants' solicitors.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had established an arguable case for the authorisation or ratification of the alterations made by the defendants' solicitors to the contract for sale. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if there were sufficient grounds to support the plaintiffs' claim that the alterations were authorised or subsequently ratified by the defendants. The court also examined the subsequent conduct of the defendants in entering into a new contract with another party and lodging a caveat, which could potentially undermine the plaintiffs' position.

The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an arguable case for authorisation or ratification of the alterations made by the defendants' solicitors. The evidence did not support the contention that the defendants had authorised the changes or subsequently ratified them. Furthermore, the conduct of the defendants in entering into a new contract with another party and lodging a caveat indicated a clear repudiation of the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that the plaintiffs' caveat was not supported by an arguable case and was therefore liable to be removed.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs' caveat be removed and that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application. The court emphasised the importance of clear and authorised communication in contractual dealings, particularly in the context of conveyancing under the Torrens system, and warned against the potential consequences of ambiguous or unauthorised alterations to contracts for sale.