Neubacher v Good

In the matter of Neubacher v Good, the Supreme Court of South Australia was called upon to determine the validity of a caveat lodged by the executrix of the estate of an individual, who was presumed to have been wrongfully and intentionally killed by another individual. The deceased individual was one of two joint tenants of a property, and the surviving joint tenant was subsequently presumed to have died under suspicious circumstances shortly after the first individual's death. The court was required to determine whether the executrix of the first individual could lodge a caveat to prevent the registration of the second individual's executrix as the proprietor of the property by transmission, given that the surviving joint tenant had gained a beneficial accrual that was subsequently precluded by the forfeiture rule.

The legal issues before the court were whether the executrix of the first individual had the standing to lodge a caveat against the registration of the second individual's executrix as the proprietor of the property, and whether the caveat should be removed. The court had to consider the effect of the forfeiture rule on the beneficial accrual that the surviving joint tenant had gained, and whether this accrual was sufficient to prevent the executrix of the first individual from lodging a caveat.

The court found that the executrix of the first individual had the standing to lodge a caveat against the registration of the second individual's executrix as the proprietor of the property, as the undivided half share that had accrued to the surviving joint tenant was held upon a constructive trust for the estate of the first individual. The court held that the forfeiture rule did not apply to prevent the executrix of the first individual from lodging a caveat, as the beneficial accrual that the surviving joint tenant had gained was not sufficient to override the equitable interest of the first individual's estate. The court also found that the caveat should not be removed, as it was validly lodged and served its purpose in preventing the registration of the second individual's executrix as the proprietor of the property.