Trepan Investments Pty Ltd v Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Trepan Investments Pty Ltd, sought to challenge a decision concerning its right to lodge a caveat. The first respondent was Swanston Mortgage Pty Ltd, and the second respondent was the Registrar of Titles, who indicated he did not wish to make representations on his behalf.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the equitable right of a mortgagor to set aside a sale by a mortgagee, where the mortgagee has breached their duty of good faith and regard for the mortgagor's interests, constitutes a sufficient interest to found a right to lodge a caveat. This involved a consideration of whether such a right should be characterised as a "mere equity" or a "full equitable interest," and whether this distinction was relevant for the purpose of establishing a caveatable interest.

The applicant argued that the right to set aside the sale, being a right requiring the assistance of equity, was a sufficient basis for lodging a caveat. The Court considered the distinction between a "mere equity" and an "equitable interest" as discussed in cases like *Latec Investments*, and whether this distinction mattered for the purpose of lodging a caveat. The applicant contended that while an injunction might be an alternative remedy, it did not negate the existence of a caveatable right.