Patmore v Upton

The case of Patmore v Upton involved a dispute over the validity of a caveat lodged against a property. The first defendant, Patmore, was the registered proprietor of a property. The second defendant, Upton, lodged a caveat against dealings relating to the property. Patmore sought a declaration that the caveat was invalid and sought an injunction to restrain Upton from continuing to rely on it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether Upton had a caveatable interest in the property. The court noted that under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), a caveat can only be lodged by someone with a caveatable interest in the property. The court considered whether Patmore’s status as the registered proprietor of the property was sufficient to establish a caveatable interest. The court found that merely being the registered proprietor was not enough to establish a caveatable interest. The court held that the registered proprietor must have some other interest in the property, such as a lease or a mortgage, to be able to lodge a caveat.

The court found that Upton did not have a caveatable interest in the property. The court held that the caveat was invalid and granted Patmore’s application for an injunction to restrain Upton from continuing to rely on it. The court also declared that the caveat was invalid and ordered that it be removed from the register.

This case highlights the importance of establishing a caveatable interest before lodging a caveat against a property. It also serves as a reminder that being the registered proprietor of a property is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a caveatable interest.