Rowe v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [No 2]

In the case of Rowe v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [No 2], the appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Master of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, who had dismissed his application to extend a caveat over certain land. The appellant's application was grounded on his assertion of an equitable interest in the land, specifically the Hehir Street land, held by the respondent, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth. The dispute hinged on whether the appellant's claim had substance under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), and whether the court could consider rights conferred by Roman Catholic Canon Law in determining the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant could satisfy the court that his claim had or may have substance, as required by section 138C(2)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA). This involved assessing the merits of the appellant's claims under the doctrines of proprietary estoppel by encouragement and acquiescence, and determining whether these claims could be substantiated under civil law, even if they relied on Roman Catholic Canon Law. The court had to decide whether the appellant's claims, which included the assertion that he had an equitable interest in the Hehir Street land due to representations or acquiescence by the respondent, were sufficient to warrant an extension of the caveat. The court also had to consider whether the Master's findings on the nature of the appellant's claims and the applicability of Canon Law were correct.

The court found that the appellant's claims did not have substance. The appellant's claim of proprietary estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence was not substantiated by the evidence. The court determined that the appellant did not own the 'ecclesiastical goods' of the St Anne's community and that rights conferred by or subject to Roman Catholic Canon Law could not form the basis for a claim for equitable relief in a civil court. The Master's decision to dismiss the application to extend the caveat was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that his claim had or may have substance, and thus the application to extend the caveat was properly dismissed by the Master.