Pham v Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd and Others; Pham v Sebie (No. 5)

In the case of Pham v Enterprise ICT Pty Ltd and Others; Pham v Sebie (No. 5), the plaintiffs sought orders for the withdrawal of a caveat and for restraint from lodging further caveats, following the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The original contract was made in October 2014, and specific performance was ordered in May 2017. Settlement was scheduled for 11 April 2018 before the Registrar in Equity. However, a caveat was lodged on 4 April 2018, prompting the plaintiffs to apply for orders under sections 74MA and 74O of the Real Property Act on 18 April 2018.

The legal issues before the court were whether the discretion under section 74MA should be exercised to order the withdrawal of the caveat, whether there was a serious question to be tried, and what the balance of convenience was. Additionally, the court needed to determine if an order should be made to restrain the caveator from lodging further caveats, and whether the caveators should pay the plaintiffs’ costs on an indemnity basis.

The court held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the caveat was entered without reasonable cause and that there was no serious question to be tried. It was also found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under section 74MA to order the withdrawal of the caveat and made an order under section 74O restraining the caveator from lodging further caveats without the leave of the court. The court further ordered that the caveators pay the plaintiffs’ costs on the indemnity basis.

In summary, the court granted the plaintiffs’ application for the withdrawal of the caveat, restrained the caveator from lodging further caveats, and ordered the caveators to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on an indemnity basis.