Syndication Capital Group Pty Limited v MDR Cornish Investments Pty Limited

In the matter of Syndication Capital Group Pty Limited versus MDR Cornish Investments Pty Limited, the New South Wales Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a caveat should be extended under the Real Property Act 1900. The caveator, Syndication Capital Group, sought to extend a caveat placed over certain land, asserting an interest described as an equitable fee simple as a purchaser under an exchanged contract for sale and as a beneficiary of a constructive trust. The defendant, MDR Cornish Investments, opposed the extension, arguing that the caveat was defective in form and substance.

The court was required to determine whether the caveator had a seriously arguable case that its claim had substance and whether the balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat. The caveat was contested on the grounds that it was defective as it related to four lots of land whereas the contract pertained to only one lot, and that it misdescribed the contract. However, the court noted that these defects could potentially be overlooked under section 74L of the Real Property Act 1900. Furthermore, the court considered whether the caveator could obtain relief in relation to the entire subject land despite the contract only pertaining to one lot.

The court held that the caveator had a seriously arguable case that the contracts had been exchanged and/or that the circumstances gave rise to a constructive trust. The balance of convenience favoured extending the caveat, given that the defendant was unable to obtain finance and was incurring interest costs. Additionally, the caveator and its principal had provided an undertaking as to damages. The court concluded that the caveator's priority should only be jeopardised in rare circumstances, and therefore, the caveat was extended.

The court ordered that the caveat be extended for a period of six months, subject to the caveator providing an undertaking as to damages in the event that the claim was ultimately unsuccessful. The defendant was ordered to pay the caveator's costs of the application.