Wang v Fang - [2025] NSWSC 222

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Fang [2025] NSWSC 222
Hearing dates: 14 March 2025
Date of orders: 14 March 2025
Decision date: 14 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s application for extension of caveat dismissed with costs

Catchwords:
LAND LAW — Caveats — Formal requirements — Requirement to specify particulars of estate or interest claimed

Legislation Cited:
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 74O

Cases Cited:
ATF Group Pty Ltd v Souzan Melek [2023] NSWSC 333
Brose v Slade [2022] NSWSC 1785

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Xiaobo Wang (Plaintiff)
Yunxia Fang (First Defendant)
National Australia Bank Ltd (Second Defendant)
Bei Le Shen (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
MW Young SC (Plaintiff)
D Pritchard SC (First and Third Defendants)
Solicitors: Sunfield Chambers (Plaintiff)
Juris Cor Legal (First and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2024/00270452
Publication restriction: Nil

ex tempore JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Summary

This judgment resolves an application for the extension of caveat AU 37XXXX by the plaintiff, Ms Xiabo Wang, for whom Mr M W Young of Senior Counsel appeared. The first defendant, Ms Yunxia Fang and her son, the third defendant, Mr Bei Le Shen were represented by Mr D Pritchard of Senior Counsel.
The contest between the parties was limited to arguments about the adequacy of the form of the caveat and the existence of a serious question to be tried. No submissions were put by Mr Pritchard SC against the proposition that the balance of convenience favoured the extension of the caveat.
For the reasons which follow, the Court has determined that the form of the caveat is irretrievably bad and that the application for its extension will be dismissed. Insofar as Mr Young SC foreshadowed an application for leave under s 74O of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) to file a new caveat, the Court has determined not to entertain such an application made from the bar table. If Ms Wang wishes to bring such an application, then it will have to be brought in the ordinary course by a new notice of motion supported by evidence, including the precise form of the proposed new caveat.

The caveat

The caveat has been lodged over a property of which Mr Shen is the registered proprietor (Lot 4). The caveat is, perhaps unusually, in three parts. Before setting those parts out, it should be borne in mind (as I will develop below) that a caveat must set out the nature of the estate or interest in the land claimed by the caveator, together with the facts on which the claim is founded. Furthermore, the caveat is to be assessed from the point of view of a reader of the caveat who is not necessarily the registered proprietor, and who is not to be expected to undertake inquiries or research outside the four corners of the caveat.
As I have mentioned, the caveat may be considered in three parts. In what might be described as the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wang v Fang

Details

AGLC: Wang v Fang [2025] NSWSC 222
Case: [2025] NSWSC 222
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Fang involved a dispute between the parties concerning a caveat lodged by Wang against a property owned by Fang. Wang had lodged a caveat claiming an unregistered interest in the property, which Fang sought to have removed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether Wang's caveat complied with the formal requirements of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), specifically whether it adequately specified the particulars of the estate or interest claimed.

The court examined the content of Wang's caveat and considered whether it met the statutory requirements for a valid caveat. Wang argued that the particulars of the estate or interest claimed were adequately described, while Fang contended that the description was vague and insufficient. The court held that Wang's caveat did not sufficiently specify the particulars of the estate or interest claimed, as it failed to provide a clear and precise description. This was essential to satisfy the statutory requirements for lodging a caveat. Consequently, the court ruled that the caveat was invalid and ordered it to be removed.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales determined that the failure to specify the particulars of the estate or interest claimed rendered Wang's caveat invalid. The court's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the statutory requirements outlined in the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). As a result, Wang's caveat was removed, and Fang was granted relief from the encumbrance on the property title. The court's ruling reinforced the necessity for caveators to comply with the formal requirements when lodging a caveat to protect their interests effectively.

Orders