Amending the “interest” claimed in a caveat

Mistakes are often made in describing the interest claimed in a caveat. Is it possible to amend the caveat to claim the correct interest? Macaulay J considered this issue in Percy & Michele Pty Ltd v Gangemi [2010] VSC 530. where the interest claimed was “estate in fee simple” when it should have been “an equitable interest as a chargee”. The power to amend a caveat is derived from the discretionary power in s.90 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 for the court to “make such order as the court thinks fit”. After considering Midwarren Estates Pty Ltd v Retek and Stivic [1975] VR 575 where Menhenitt J was of the view that s.90(3) did not authorise an amendment of the estate claimed, His Honour said at [101]:

“Having referred to these authorities, and canvassed these views, I do nonetheless recognise that the power expressed in s 90(3) is wide and unqualified. Ultimately, the better view may be that although the power is to be construed as being wide enough to amend the estate or interest claimed, in appropriate circumstances, nevertheless when exercising its discretion the court should generally be less inclined to amend the interest or estate claimed than to amend the grounds of the claim or the scope of the protection asserted.”

In refusing the appliation to amend the interest claimed His Honour at [104]-[105]  identified four factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion: 

(a)    the amendment sought is to the interest claimed and not just the grounds of claim or the scope of the protection;

(b)    the circumstances in which the error was made;

(c)   the court should not readily act in a way which might encourage the belief that caveats can be imprecisely formulated and then “fixed up later”; caveats act as an interlocutory injunction (albeit by an administrative act) and can have powerful and serious consequences; wrongly formulated caveats should not easily be tolerated;

(d)    the overall merits of the claim for a caveatable interest of the kind which is sought by the amendment; in other words, it should have regard to all of the same considerations which arise on the application of removal for a caveat in the terms sought.

His Honour refused the application.

See also Martorella v Innovision Developments Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 282.

 

Advertisements
  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Owners Corporations Law

Developments in strata body corporate law in Victoria

The Warne Account

The blog of Dan Warne, Australian tech writer.

Best Practices for Legal Education

A Vision and a Road Map

Tisher Liner FC Law Blog

Legal Updates on Business Law, Property and Litigation

THE NSW BAR -- A COMMENTARY

AN ASSOCIATION OF UNCOMMON PEOPLE

With Compliments

Geoffrey Gibson

CommBar Matters

Commentary and case law from the Commercial Bar Association's finest.

The law of land and sea

Australian law of property and environment

Amicae Curiae

Women. Law. Legal Education. Legal Practice. Career. Work/Life balance

Carrie Rome-Sievers, Barrister

Developments in insolvency and commercial law

Equity, Trusts and More

Travis Mitchell, Barrister at the Victorian Bar

Sam Ure

A Melbourne barrister practising in commercial disputes, tax and administrative law

The Property Law Blog

Robert Hay QC Property and Commercial Law Barrister

%d bloggers like this: