Re Day

In *Re Day*, the applicant sought to have a caveat lodged by the respondent removed from a parcel of land. The applicant was the registered proprietor of the parcel, and the respondent claimed an equitable interest in the property by virtue of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of the land. The matter came before Gordon J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had established a sufficient caveatable interest in the land to justify the continued existence of the caveat. This required the Court to determine whether there was a valid oral agreement for the sale of the land, and if so, whether that agreement gave rise to an equitable interest that could be protected by a caveat. The Court also considered the principles governing the removal of caveats, particularly where the caveator claims an equitable interest.

Gordon J applied the principles established in *Barry v. Heider* and *Oجل v. Barry*, which confirm that an unregistered interest in land, even if arising from an oral agreement, can be a caveatable interest. Her Honour found that the evidence presented by the respondent did not establish a concluded oral agreement for the sale of the land. Specifically, the terms of the alleged agreement were too uncertain, and there was no sufficient part performance to take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. Consequently, the respondent had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of an equitable interest in the land.

The Court ordered that the caveat lodged by the respondent be removed.