Starling v Miller

The plaintiff, Starling, brought proceedings against the defendant, Miller, concerning a property previously owned by both parties. The dispute arose following a Family Court decision which awarded the property to Miller and required her to pay Starling a settlement sum of $1.5 million. If the sum was not paid by a particular date, it was to be raised by the sale of the property. The Family Court made orders allowing Starling to lodge a caveat over the property and, if necessary, for the parties to lodge a consent caveat. Starling subsequently lodged a caveat, which Miller sought to have removed. The court was required to determine whether the Family Court orders created a caveatable interest, and if so, whether the form of the caveat lodged by Starling was acceptable. The court also had to decide whether to extend the operation of the caveat or grant an injunction to prevent Miller from taking steps to have the caveat lapse.

The court found that the Family Court orders did indeed give rise to a caveatable interest. The interest in question related to the unpaid settlement sum and the right to have the property sold if the sum was not paid. This interest was sufficient to warrant the lodgement of a caveat. However, the form of the caveat lodged by Starling was deemed to be insupportable because it did not adequately reflect the interest as determined by the court. The court did not extend the operation of the existing caveat but granted Starling leave to lodge a new caveat that properly reflected the caveatable interest identified. Furthermore, an injunction was ordered to prevent Miller from taking any steps to procure the lapsing of the new caveat until further order of the court.

In conclusion, the court found that the Family Court orders created a caveatable interest and directed Starling to lodge a properly worded caveat. An injunction was also issued to protect the new caveat from being removed by Miller. The court’s decision ensures that Starling’s interest in the property is protected pending the resolution of the settlement sum. The orders reflect the need for clarity and precision in the lodgement of caveats to ensure they accurately represent the underlying interests they are intended to protect.