Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology v Galloway

In the case of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology v Galloway, the plaintiff sought the removal of a caveat lodged by the defendant, who claimed a freehold estate in land pursuant to an agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether the caveat was properly lodged, whether it inhibited the sale process, and if an injunction should be granted to prevent further caveats. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriateness of indemnity costs.

The central issues before the court were whether the defendant's caveat had a proper basis and if it inhibited the sale process. The court also needed to determine if the defendant had a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the caveat. Furthermore, the court examined whether the caveat was lodged as a bargaining chip and if an injunction was warranted to prevent further caveats from being lodged. Lastly, the court considered the application for indemnity costs in light of the defendant's conduct.

The court found that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to support any interest in the land, let alone a freehold estate. The caveat was lodged without proper basis and inhibited the sale process, potentially affecting the sale price and any potential buyers. The court held that no serious question to be tried was established and that no interest in the property could support the caveat. Even if there had been a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience would have favoured the removal of the caveat. The court granted the plaintiff's application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from lodging any further caveats and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis.

The court's orders included the authorisation for the plaintiff to commence the proceeding by originating motion, the removal of the caveat from the land register, the restraint of the defendant from lodging further caveats, the payment of indemnity costs by the defendant, and the reservation of liberty to apply for further orders. The proceeding was otherwise dismissed.