RDN Developments Pty Ltd v Shtrambrandt

RDN Developments Pty Ltd has initiated legal proceedings against Shtrambrandt in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute revolves around the validity of a caveat lodged by Shtrambrandt against certain land and the effect of a sale of lots on an unregistered plan of subdivision. RDN Developments is seeking compensation for the lodging of the caveat without reasonable cause, and Shtrambrandt has argued that the sale of the lots on the unregistered plan of subdivision was valid despite not complying with the statutory requirements.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the caveat lodged by Shtrambrandt was without reasonable cause, and if the sale of lots on an unregistered plan of subdivision could be considered valid despite not meeting the statutory requirements. The court had to determine whether RDN Developments was entitled to compensation under section 118 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) and whether the sale of lots was effective under section 9AE of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic), despite not complying with subsection 9AA(1) of the same Act.

In examining the first issue, the court found that the caveat lodged by Shtrambrandt did not have reasonable cause, as there was no evidence to support the claim that RDN Developments was attempting to acquire the land without the consent of the registered proprietor. The court relied on the case of Lee v Ross (No 2) (2003) 11 BPR 20,991, to establish that the lodging of the caveat was without reasonable cause. As a result, RDN Developments was awarded compensation. Regarding the second issue, the court held that the sale of lots on the unregistered plan of subdivision was not valid, as it did not comply with the statutory requirements under section 9AA(1) of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic). Consequently, the sale did not confer any rights on the purchasers of the lots.