Glenis & Anor v Ikosedikas & Ors  VSC 278 (30 May 2018) T Forrest J.
The defendants alleged that in 2011 the first plaintiff entered into a loan agreement consolidating previous loans with a then balance of about $250,000. The agreement gave the lender had the right to caveat over certain residential land owned by the plaintiffs if the loan was not repaid that year. The first plaintiff said that his signature on the agreement was forged but did not dispute a debt which by April 2018 had with compound interest risen to between $450,000 and $690,000.
In March 2018 the plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell that land for $1.995 m. It was subject to a registered mortgage securing loans with current balances of over $2 m. though apparently another property owned by the second plaintiff was linked to this
In April 2018 the defendants caveated on the grounds of “part-performed oral agreement with the registered proprietors”, the estate or interest claimed being “interest as charge”.
The plaintiffs applied to remove the caveat. Counsel for the plaintiffs was prepared to assume for the purposes of argument on this application that the loan agreement was genuine. He also argued that the caveat was defective: in its reference to oral agreement; because it was over the whole property; and when the charge was allegedly created the plaintiffs did not have legal estate in the land.
His Honour held –
1. The existence of the loan agreement sufficed to establish a serious question to be tried. Assuming the authenticity of the agreement, the first plaintiff intended to grant the defendants a charge over the property as security for a loan already advanced. The fact that the first plaintiff possessed no proprietary rights as at the date of the agreement was not fatal as the parties understood that the charge related to future property which at the time of enforcement could be identified. Questions of a carve out of the second plaintiff’s interest and whether the caveat ought be struck down as defective or amended to reflect the assertedly misleading ‘oral agreement’ grounds of claim were unsuitable for determination in an interlocutory proceeding. 
2. Where a caveator establishes a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of that caveator. 
3. However notwithstanding the substantial debt intended by the first plaintiff to be secured over the property the balance of convenience favoured the registered proprietors because of delay in lodging the caveat until after the contract of sale and the fact that the registered mortgage rendered the caveat worthless. To allow the caveat to remain in place would frustrate the sale without benefit to the caveator. -
Comment: The statement by his Honour that the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the caveator was supported by him with citation of interstate authority. This is more commonly expressed in Victoria in other authority cited by his Honour, namely that the caveator must establish that the balance of convenience favours maintenance of the caveat until trial and the stronger the case is in the evaluation of the serious question issue, the more readily the balance of convenience might be satisfied.