Paringawood Nominees Pty Ltd v Baulderstone

Paringawood Nominees Pty Ltd and others applied for an extension of the time for the removal of a caveat lodged in respect of certain land. The defendants opposed the application on several grounds, including that damages would be an adequate remedy, that the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat, and that any undertaking as to damages by the plaintiffs would be worthless. The court considered the principles applicable to applications for the extension of the time for removal of a caveat and concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. The court held that damages would not be an adequate remedy because the plaintiffs had an arguable case for an equitable interest in the land, and that an undertaking as to damages would be sufficient. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for removal of the caveat until further order.