This blog deals with 4 cases not warranting a blog in their own right, at times however dealing with arcane points. They are –
R.G. Murch Nominees Pty Ltd v Paul David Annesley & Ors [2019] VSC 107 (26 February 2019) Sloss J. – A further contribution by Mr Annesley, the subject of Blog 4, to the law on injunctions against caveats, he succeeding in this instance.
In the matter of the Will of Dorothea Agnes Baird [2019] VSC 59 (13 February 2019) Keogh J. – A reminder that a residuary beneficiary of an estate does not have a proprietary interest in a specific asset during administration, nor does a prospective testator’s family maintenance claimant have an interest in land in the estate.
Brooklyn Landfill & Waste Recycling Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Golf Club Inc [2019] VSC 52 (6 February 2019) Hetyey JR. – which in short held that the offer by the plaintiff’s director to consent to lodgment of a caveat over her property was insufficient security for costs. [40], [42]
S Pty Ltd v B V [2019] VSC 125 (4 March 2019) Lansdowne AsJ. – which in short, in the course of a much wider dispute, noted that a registered proprietor, who commenced a proceeding for caveat removal but by orders agreed that the proceeding be stayed, was in breach of his obligation under a mortgage to cause a caveat lodged without the consent of the mortgagee to be removed. [34]

R.G. Murch Nominees Pty Ltd v Paul David Annesley & Ors [2019] VSC 107 (26 February 2019) Sloss J.
The facts were:

• The first defendant (Annesley) was director of a company which owned a rural property mortgaged to a bank. There had been lengthy litigation between the bank and the company.  In August 2018 the bank conducted a mortgagee’s sale at which the plaintiff, whose sole director was Mr Murch (Murch), entered a contract to purchase the property. The contract was settled, the plaintiff became registered proprietor and a mortgage by it was registered.
• After settlement of the sale there were altercations between Murch and Annesley, allegations of violence by Murch, intervention orders, and the execution by the defendants of a document whereby certain defendants were purportedly appointed to take control of property of the plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing a security interest.
• The plaintiff brought this proceeding in substance to prevent the defendants interfering with the plaintiff or what it purchased, including seeking an injunction against registering or attempting to register any caveat over the land and certain other land of which the plaintiff was registered proprietor. It relied on the body of past conduct of Annesley in the improperly lodging caveats and similar documents, recorded in judgments of various courts, as manifesting his modus operandi.

As to caveats her Honour found or held –

1.    The plaintiff was in substance applying for a quia timet injunction and so was required to demonstrate a threatened infringement of the plaintiff’s rights sufficiently clearly to justify the court’s intervention.  This application did not arise from previous caveat lodgment over the land but from the defendants’ history. [79]  

2.     Authorities related to quia timet injunctive relief established the following principles –

(a)  the plaintiff must show that what the defendant intended or was likely to do would cause immediate (or imminent) and substantial damage to its property or business.  However, no fixed or absolute standard of proof was required;

(b)  the court would have regard to the degree of probability of apprehended injury, the degree of the seriousness of the injury, and the requirements of justice between the parties. [79]

3.     There being no evidence of the relevant defendants threatening or intending to lodge caveats over the plaintiff’s land, the plaintiff’s apprehension that they may do so did not qualify as an ‘imminent’ threat, and accordingly no injunction would issue. [87]

In the matter of the Will of Dorothea Agnes Baird [2019] VSC 59 (13 February 2019) Keogh J.

The facts were –

·     Dorothea Baird, who had two sons Peter and Michael, was registered proprietor of a property at Rhyll and was also registered as a one third proprietor of a property at Wonthaggi. 

·     On her death Peter obtained probate of her will under which she left her interest in the Wonthaggi property to him, made dispositions of property other than of land, and left the net residue of her estate to both sons equally as tenants in common. 

·    Michael foreshadowed a testator’s family maintenance proceeding.  He also lodged caveats against both properties stating as the grounds of his claim
that he was a beneficiary under the will.

·      Peter brought this proceeding inter alia under the TLA s. 90(3) to remove the caveats.

His Honour held –

1.    That the caveator had not raised a serious question to be tried that he had an interest in the properties.  In particular –

(a) as a residuary beneficiary he did not have a legal or equitable interest in a specific asset of the estate during the course of administration, only a chose in action, or personal right, to compel proper administration of the estate by the executor.  Further, the residue did not come into existence until administration of the estate was complete;

(b) the proposed testator’s family maintenance gave him no interest in the property. [21]-[22]

2.   The balance of convenience also favoured caveat removal. [23]