Rocky Point Holdings Pty Ltd v TEB Enterprises Pty Ltd

Rocky Point Holdings Pty Ltd and TEB Enterprises Pty Ltd were involved in a legal dispute concerning the validity of a call option deed and the subsequent lodging of caveats. The call option deed gave TEB the right to purchase land at Yatula. Rocky Point attempted to rescind the deed, but TEB claimed it had exercised its option to purchase and lodged a caveat to protect its interest. However, the caveat lapsed due to errors in the notification process, and TEB sought leave to lodge a second caveat.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether TEB was entitled to lodge a second caveat based on the same interest as the first, and if so, whether it was appropriate to grant leave considering the potential prejudice to Rocky Point. Another issue was whether the unstamped call option deed could support a caveat under the Duties Act 2001. TEB had provided an undertaking to stamp the deed if required, but it was argued that the deed remained ineffective until stamped.

The court found that TEB's intention was always to maintain the caveat and enforce its claim for specific performance. The first caveat had lapsed due to errors within the office of TEB's solicitors, and there were triable issues surrounding the circumstances of the termination of the Call Option Deed. The court concluded that denying leave to lodge a second caveat would likely result in TEB selling the land, thereby depriving Rocky Point of its interest. The court granted leave to lodge the second caveat and directed the parties to exchange written submissions regarding the costs of the application.

It is ordered that Rocky Point Holdings Pty Ltd have leave to lodge a further caveat over the specified property, claiming the same interest as under the previous caveat. The parties must file written submissions regarding the costs of the application by specified dates, and the question of costs will be determined based on these submissions unless an application for oral submissions is made.