Category: Mortgage (Equitable)

Blog 97. Caveat claiming equitable charge survives.

Formquip Nirvana Pty Ltd v Memphis Property Co Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] VSC 348, Cosgrave J. (16 June 2025).   This case is a valuable analysis of the distinction between an equitable mortgage and an equitable charge, and of how a charge may be created, this being relevant to whether an interest in land claimed in a caveat was identical to that in a lapsed caveat contrary to the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (TLA) s. 91(4).  His Honour also reminds us of the concept of hypothecation. As stated in Sackville and Neave, Australian Property Law, 10th ed, 2016, p. 1079 –

“A hypothecation is the type of security which gives the creditor power over the encumbered property only in the event of default. The creditor does not take a transfer of ownership and is not entitled to possession … a Torrens system mortgage is properly classed as a hypothecation …”

I also refer to: Hycenko v VHY Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] VSC 834; Southside Industries (Aust) Pty Ltd v D. B. Cls-B1 Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] VSC 187SR; and Symbion Pty Ltd v Sellers [2023] VSC 441.

The facts were –

  • The directors of Formquip Project Management Pty Ltd (Project Management) were Messrs Stone and Bishop. They were also the directors of the plaintiff (Nirvana) until July 2024 when Stone became sole director.
  • Nirvana was the registered proprietor of land in Bulleen being developed into 31 residences (the Property). It had entered into 14 contracts for sales off-the-plan.
  • The Property was mortgaged to a mortgagee (Payton) registered in July 2022.
  • The directors of the first defendant (Memphis) were Mr and Mrs Crozier. Memphis alleged that it had lent Nirvana $1m. for construction work on the Property pursuant to an agreement (Loan Agreement) made on about 29 December 2022 between it, Project Management and Nirvana (as varied or novated), by which Nirvana had charged and mortgaged the Property to it.  It alleged that this agreement was in writing and implied from: a deed dated 29 December 2022 (the First Deed); an email dated 17 January 2023 (the email), and; another deed executed in January 2023 (the Second Deed) by agreement backdated to 29 December 2022.
  • The parties to the First Deed were Project Management as borrower and Memphis as lender agreeing to lend $1 m., the loan commencing on 29 December 2022 and being repayable six months later. Its schedule referred to “Security” and Nirvana, but its body referred to neither.  It was executed by Stone on behalf of Project Management but unexecuted by Memphis.
  • The email was from the then solicitors for Nirvana including to Bishop and Stone. It stated:

“We confirm your instructions that the Borrower will be Formquip Nirvana Pty Ltd ATF Formquip Nirvana Trust and not Formquip Project Management Pty Ltd as per your previous instructions given that Formquip Nirvana will be providing a second mortgage over 118–120 Manningham Road, Bulleen, Vic.

Bishop forwarded it to Mr Crozier.

  • The Second Deed was signed by Stone and Bishop on behalf of Nirvana and by the Croziers on behalf of Memphis. Its parties were Nirvana as borrower and Memphis as lender.  The principal sum was $1 m. advanced or to be advanced by 29 December 2022 for the purpose of working capital for Nirvana, repayable six months later.  Clause 5 provided:

“IN consideration of the Lender entering into this Deed, and in order to secure the obligations of the Guarantor herein the Guarantor hereby CHARGES AND MORTGAGES in favour of the Lender the property described in Item 9 of the Schedule (“the Mortgaged Premises”).”

Item 9 referred to the “Mortgaged Premises” and to a second ranking mortgage over the Property.

  • In June 2024 another mortgage to Payton was registered.  In August 2024 caveats were lodged by persons surnamed Mifsud each claiming an interest as chargee.
  • On 2 October 2024 Memphis caveated claiming an interest as mortgagee pursuant to the Loan Agreement.
  • Later in October another company controlled by Stone (Boutique) caveated claiming an interest as chargee.
  • In December 2024 Memphis commenced a Supreme Court proceeding inter alia claiming relief attributable to being an equitable mortgagee of the Property.
  • On 8 January 2025 Memphis’ caveat lapsed through a notice from the Registrar of Titles under the TLA s. s. 89A which Memphis alleged it had neither received nor known of. It then lodged a second caveat, claiming an interest as chargee pursuant to the Loan Agreement.
  • Nirvana issued a proceeding including seeking removal of the caveat under the TLA s. 90(3), in part arguing that the second caveat contravened s. 91(4), which provided that a caveat that had lapsed or been removed by court order shall not be renewed by or on behalf of the same person in respect of the same interest.
  • Nirvana argued that the caveat was impeding it obtaining further finance and thus the development. Stone deposed that:
    • Payton’s initial finance was exhausted but a new financier had agreed to lend $4.8 m. to complete the development provided its debt was fully secured on the Property which was prevented by Memphis’ caveat (however, the proposed agreement with the new financier referred to different title details from those in the court documents);
    • this further funding “would allow Nirvana to complete the development and perform its obligations under the 14 contracts of sale…”, and that “[t]he financier requires such completion to occur on or before 30 September 2025”, which could not occur if the caveat remained;
    • the relevant planning permit expired on 7 October 2025;
    • Nirvana was required to enter a section 173 agreement with the municipality for which the caveator’s consent was required.

In his affidavit Stone requested that, due to commercial sensitivities, details of the new financier and any party involved in the development not be revealed to Memphis.

  • Counsel for Memphis submitted: the loan was from Memphis to Nirvana which charged and mortgaged the Property in its favour; the word “Guarantor” in cl. 5 of the Second Deed was an error for “Borrower”; notwithstanding the ostensible terms of the deeds it was apparent that Nirvana was the borrower from the intended effect of cl. 5, the Second Deed being created shortly after the email confirming that Nirvana (not Project Management) was the borrower.
  • Counsel for Nirvana submitted: there was no such error in cl. 5; the loan was a “three-way arrangement” with Project Management as borrower and the Second Deed being executed so as to obtain a guarantee from Nirvana; but the Second Deed was irremediably defective principally because Nirvana as principal borrower could not also be a guarantor.
  • Counsel for Memphis relied on Australian Secured & Managed Mortgages Pty Ltd v Horizon Hotels Pty Ltd (“Horizon Hotels”) [2022] NSWSC 1647, where the following clause in an agreement was held to create an equitable charge:

“The applicant/s hereby charges and mortgages to and in favour of … Highmore the applicant’s interest in any and all assets and real property owned by the applicant/s individually or jointly (including the security offered) to secure payment by the applicant/s to … Highmore of the fees and any and all other monies due to … Highmore by the applicant/s including all amounts that … Highmore may incur in connection with the enforcement and/or preservation of its rights under this agreement.”

Cosgrave J. declined to remove the caveat, holding –

  1. Although “Guarantor” was referred to in cl. 5, the Second Deed did not otherwise refer to a guarantor in its description of parties or schedule. Further: Nirvana’s lawyers had prepared it and to that extent it could be construed against Nirvana contra proferentem; there was no evidence that Mr Crozier obtained professional advice about either deed; it was undisputed that Nirvana was the registered proprietor of the Property, that Memphis had lent $1 m. in connection with its development, not repaid, and that as confirmed in the email (sent by a director of Nirvana to Memphis) Nirvana had instructed its solicitors that Nirvana not Project Management was the borrower. [39]-[40]
  2. Accordingly, notwithstanding issues with the documentation, the caveator had raised a serious question of having an equitable charge, cl. 5 of the Second Deed being materially similar to that in issue in Horizon Hotels. The email was important in confirming the thrust of Memphis’ case that by agreement the borrower would not be Project Management but Nirvana which would grant security to Memphis.  Even if there was some uncertainty and the Second Deed did not accurately represent the agreement, the party to be charged signed it consistently with Memphis’ case. [37], [41]
  3. Because the relevant clause referred to both charging and mortgaging, the Second Deed created two different types of interest in the property which could attract protection by a caveat. More particularly –
    1. Whereas an equitable charge was a pure hypothecation not entitling the chargee to foreclosure on default, an equitable mortgage was a mixed hypothecation giving the mortgagee potential full beneficial ownership through the process of foreclosure. [52], [57]
    2. The creation of a charge did not require any specific wording. It sufficed that the grantor manifested an immediate intention to create a charge by using words, such as “will charge”, creating a present intention to charge land specified as security. [57]
    3. Further, an agreement to execute a registrable instrument upon request transferring to one party another’s estate and interest in land by way of security created a specifically enforceable right to call for a legal mortgage, which was a species of equitable mortgage. [57]
  4. Notwithstanding Nirvana alleging that its urgent need for finance was being forestalled by the caveat the balance of convenience did not favour its removal because:
    1. Nirvana would still be impeded by five prior interests. There was no evidence of the position of the registered mortgagee or other caveators, in particular the size of their debts or willingness to be paid, or of project completion costs; [63]-[64]
    2. If the caveat remained the new financier could still register a security interest with likely priority subsequent to the other claimed security interests; [65]
    3. Stone did not expressly depose that the only way to complete the project by 30 September 2025 was with the asserted further finance, or that without it the project would not be completed; [66]
    4. If the new financier registered a mortgage with priority over Memphis (and potentially over other parties claiming interests in the Property) then Memphis could not only lose its priority but the security interest itself. The Court could not assess with reasonable confidence whether if its caveat was removed Memphis would be repaid, absent evidence both of the debts owed to the registered mortgagee and other caveators and evidence enabling comparison of total construction and development costs with the likely proceeds of sale.  The Court suspected non-payment, with Memphis suffering serious potential damage; [67]-[68]
    5. The new finance documentation exhibited was unclear and uncertain because much was redacted or entirely missing. Evidence was lacking on both the final terms of the building contract and whether the prospective new financier approved it.  Hence it was uncertain whether the building would proceed even if the caveat was removed; [69]
    6. There was no compelling rationale for the confidentiality sought. The Court could have been asked to preserve confidentiality by for example placing an affidavit or exhibit in a sealed envelope with no access without curial leave.  However, Nirvana had acted unilaterally by withholding documentation without sufficient explanation. [70]
    7. The discrepancy in title details between the proposed new finance facility and the court documents was unexplained. [71]

    [72]

  5. Subject to hearing the parties the proceeding would be dismissed with costs taxed on the standard basis. [73]

 

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

 

Blog 91. A NSW case and a pseudo-law case providing some light Christmas relief.

I do not normally deal with NSW cases, but a veteran Victorian lawyer has drawn my attention to an interesting NSW case which I first consider briefly.   Then I offer the light relief found in the most recent Victorian caveat case, replete with pseudo-law.

Cui v Salas-Photiadis [2024] NSWSC 1280, Hmelnitsky J.  Briefly the facts were –

  • The second defendant (Simpo) was the registered proprietor of land (the Land). On 27 February 2024 it as borrower entered into a Loan Agreement with the first defendant as lender.  Clause 17.1(a) provided:

‘[Simpo] grant[s] a security interest in the collateral to [the first defendant] to secure payment of the secured money.

This security interest is a mortgage of the land, … and a charge over the other collateral.

This security interest is also an encumbrance.’

‘Collateral’ was defined in the agreement as including ‘the land’, which itself was described as:

‘each on [sic] or more of the following that the context allows:

(a) the real property described in the [Finance Offer Schedule];

…’

The Finance Offer Schedule stated that the security included a ‘Mortgage by [Simpo] over the land detailed below’.  Underneath was a description of the Land and the words ‘2nd Registered Mortgage’.

  • Part of the secured money was amounts outstanding under construction contracts between a company associated with the lender and Simpo.
  • A form of mortgage to give effect to the security arrangement was executed but not registered.
  • On 12 April the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the land, which was improved by a home.
  • On 20 May the first defendant caveated claiming an interest as a ‘charge’ granted under the loan agreement.
  • Settlement ‘occurred’ on 28 June. However, in the words of the judge –

‘Bafflingly, no participant in the PEXA workspace noticed that the first defendant’s caveat had been lodged.  If they did, they did not appreciate the significance of it.  Instead, the parties blindly proceeded towards settlement in the usual way.’

  • The following day the incoming mortgagee received a requisition from Land Registry Services stating that the caveat prevented registration of the transfer and mortgage.
  • The plaintiff sought an order under s. 74MA of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) that the caveat be withdrawn.

Hmelnitsky J. declined to order that the caveat be withdrawn, holding –

  1. The caveat was not invalid for failure to specify the nature of the equitable estate or interest claimed sufficiently. His Honour referred to NSW authority which had itself quoted English authority which stated –

‘An equitable charge may, it is said, take the form either of an equitable mortgage or of an equitable charge not by way of mortgage.  An equitable mortgage is created when the legal owner of the property constituting the security enters into some instrument or does some act which, though insufficient to confer a legal estate or title in the subject matter upon the mortgagee, nevertheless demonstrates a binding intention to create a security in favour of the mortgagee, or in other words evidences a contract to do so: … An equitable charge which is not an equitable mortgage is said to be created when property is expressly or constructively made liable, or specially appropriated, to the discharge of a debt or some other obligation, and confers on the chargee a right of realisation by judicial process, that is to say, by the appointment of a receiver or an order for sale: …’

His Honour said that these references acknowledged that an equitable charge may or may not take the form of an equitable mortgage.  [33], [34]

  1. Like Victoria, NSW has legislation (the Home Building Act 1989) s. 7D of which prohibits an agreement which, in substance, purports to give a person a legal estate in land to secure the performance of (ie payments under) a residential building contract. This agreement was unenforceable by reason of s. 7D to the extent it purported to secure the payment for residential building work. [40], [46], [47]
  2. However, as the loan agreement and mortgage created a valid and enforceable equitable mortgage in favour of the defendant to secure the repayment of loans other than the amounts due and payable under the construction contracts, to this extent the caveat was valid. The description in the caveat of the first defendant’s purported equitable estate or interest in the land remained correct (or sufficiently correct). [52], [54]

Comment:

Holding 1, appears to this blogger to be lenient to the caveator, but arguably a charge was created under the Loan Agreement.  The Victorian reader should stick to the options contained in the Victorian government publication ‘Guide to grounds of claim for caveats’.   But it is noted that, apart from various discrete ‘mortgage’ claims, in Victoria one can claim an interest as chargee based on a ‘charge contained in mortgage’.

As to holding 2, the similar Victorian legislation is s. 18 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995.

 

Nelson v Greenman & Anor [2024] VSC 704, Gobbo AsJ. (15 November 2024)

The facts were:

  • Stephen Douglas was the registered proprietor of land at Koo Wee Rup.  He was bankrupted in 2019.  On the making of the sequestration order his interest in the land vested in the plaintiff under the Bankruptcy Act and in 2021 the plaintiff became its registered proprietor.  Between then and March 2024 were many legal twists and turns involving the Federal Court, the Sheriff, VCAT, the Supreme Court, and the police executing a warrant of possession on the third attempt.
  • In the course of the foregoing the first defendant caveated on the ground of an implied, resulting or constructive trust.  The plaintiff sought removal of the caveat under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3).

In the course of removing the caveat with indemnity costs Gobbo AsJ. grappled with documents and concepts relied on by the caveator including: the argument that the property was Christian ministry headquarters involving the DOUGLAS Stephen Ross Estate Trust of which the first defendant was the Special Trustee, and the Koo Wee Rup Ministry Trust; that the Special Trustee was formalised by trust deed which included the property; that the DOUGLAS Stephen Ross Estate Trust was a Life Estate in Fee Simple; that under the Trusts (Hague Convention) Act 1991 (Cth) whoever held a title to the property held it on behalf of the trust; accordingly the property was exempt property held in a trust by the bankrupt for someone else, ie the Koo Wee Rup Ministry, as described in the Bankruptcy Act s. 116; as to certain public figures described as the ‘Living Man’ or ‘Living Woman’; and many others.

Her Honour described the caveator’s affidavit as ‘34 pages of nonsensical quasi‑legal concepts and phrases, Bible quotes and references to organisations and entities with unconventional titles or descriptions’.  Her Honour rejected an application by the caveator to remove the case to ‘the People’s Court of Terra Australis’.   The blogger also learnt that there is now a body of literature on the rise of ‘pseudo-law’ being ‘a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law’, being ‘integrated and separate legal apparatus’ with its own confounding legal theories, constituting an ‘alternative legal universe’. Her Honour lists exotic varieties of this ‘doctrine’.

The legal points of value in this case were as follows.  Her Honour stated that at its highest, the first defendant’s case appeared to be that the plaintiff had no entitlement to possession as legal owner because the land was legally transferred to a trust.  However, in Douglas v Nelson [2024] VSC 116 Quigley J held it not to have been established that the bankrupt had made a valid transfer of the legal ownership of the title to the land to any trust entity, referring to the law on when equity would recognise the assignment of property without consideration.  Gobbo AsJ also dealt with: the circumstances in which silence could constitute acceptance of an offer sufficient to establish a contract, and; the jurisdictional basis of the office of Associate Justice.

Merry Christmas

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, December 10, 2024

Blog 84. A freehold estate?

The Victorian government publication “Guide to grounds of claim for caveats” lists “Freehold Estate” in certain circumstances under “Estate or interest claimed”.  In Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832 (Blog 34) Garde J. stated at footnote [15] –

“At common law, there are three kinds of freehold estates – a fee simple, a fee tail and a life estate.  The most common freehold estate encountered in Victoria is the fee simple estate.”  Because it has been impossible to create a fee tail in Victoria for a long time (see Property Law Act  1958 Part VI) the field is reduced to fee simple and life estate.  In Marchmont v Keeshan [2023] VCC 2138 Judge Marks considered: caveats claiming a freehold estate; issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process arising from a previous caveat removal proceeding; and whether a stay should be granted pending an appeal from orders removing caveats, in the course of which her Honour considered the nature of a caveat.

The facts were –

  • In March 2017 the plaintiffs lent the defendant $50,000 pursuant to a written agreement.  On about 20 September 2017 the plaintiffs and the defendant entered a second agreement relating to the original $50,000 loan and to a further loan of $185,000.  Clause 8.1(b) of the Second Agreement in substance provided that if there was a default by the Borrower the Lender (i) ‘may call on the Borrower to provide a mortgage over real property determined by the Lender on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Lender, at any time prior to the Repayment Date’ and (ii) ‘At any time prior to the Repayment Date the Lender may, pursuant to this clause, lodge a caveat over any such real property it may determine as appropriate to provide security pursuant to sub-clause (a) hereof.
  • The defendant repaid part of the debt, the extent of repayment being disputed.
  • On 6 July 2020, the plaintiffs lodged caveats over properties owned by the defendant stating the ‘Estate or interest claimed’ as ‘Freehold Estate’ and the ‘Grounds of claim’ as ‘Agreement with [the Registered Proprietor(s)] dated 20/09/17’.
  • February 2023 the defendant, in the context of seeking a particular refinancing facility, applied to the Supreme Court to remove the caveats, resulting in a consent order dismissing the proceeding with no order as to costs.  Under “Other Matters” McDonald J. noted –

“The parties have agreed to resolve the matter with the First and Second Defendant consenting to a registration of first ranking mortgages over the properties the subject of the proceeding.  The First and Second defendants undertake to provide all relevant consents in writing for the registration of first ranking mortgages in relation to the facility referred to at paragraph 17 of the affidavit of Clinton Keeshan …”.

  • That refinancing did not proceed and the defendant now applied to the County Court under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) for removal of the caveats.

Judge Marks removed the caveats, holding –

  1. The reference to ‘sub-clause (a)’ at the end of sub-clause (b)(ii) was to be construed as a reference to sub-clause (b)(i). [27]
  2. There was no serious question to be tried that the plaintiffs had the estate or interest claimed, because –
    1. Each caveat “overclaimed”, in that cl. 8.1 gave no sort of freehold estate interest but at most a charge or something akin to a chargeable interest.   This case was distinguishable from 187 Settlement Road v Kennards Storage Management [2022] VSC 771 (Blog 69) where a ‘freehold estate’ was claimed in circumstances involving a right which might later turn into holding the freehold estate, in that that caveator had a conditional right to purchase that land.  The highest interest ever available to the plaintiffs under cl. 8.1(b) was the right to call on the defendant to provide a mortgage. [21], [24], [25], [28], [31]
    2. Clause 8.1(b) did not entitle the plaintiffs to restrain any dealing with the freehold estate.  An unregistered charge, unregistered mortgage, or even a registered mortgage, did not prevent the registered proprietor of the land from granting further charges or mortgages.  The principal vice in a caveat which overclaimed in the manner of these caveats was that they could achieve that unjustified effect.  This was a key reason underpinning the requirement for a caveator to establish a serious question to be tried of the estate or interest claimed and not some other interest.  This case was analogous to those in which a creditor claimed ‘an estate in fee simple’. [29], [30]
  3. Further, on the proper construction of the second agreement, a ‘call’ under cl. 8.1(b)(i) was likely necessary before a caveatable interest arose (and there had not been one). [35]
  4. The balance of convenience also favoured removal of the caveats over some of the properties, because, having regard to amount arguably secured, the plaintiffs would have been protected by maintaining caveats on the other properties.  There was no identifiable prejudice to the caveators from this removal, but the registered proprietor needed to avoid the consequences of the first mortgage being in default. [36], [37], [39]
  5. None of the doctrines of issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or abuse of process, founded on the existence of the Supreme Court order, barred this application.  In particular –
    1. although an issue estoppel could arise where a final order was made, including by consent, the estoppel could only exist in respect of matters necessarily resolved by the earlier order and where the decision was ‘final and conclusive on the merits’.  Nothing as to the validity of the caveats was necessarily resolved as a step in reaching the ‘determination’ made in the Supreme Court order; [49]-[51]
    2. An Anshun estoppel precluded the assertion of a claim, or the raising of an issue of fact or law, if that claim or issue was so connected with the subject matter of the first proceeding as to have made it unreasonable for the claim not to have been made or the issue not to have been raised in that proceeding.  There was no hearing on the merits in the Supreme Court: it was not arguable that it was unreasonable for claims or arguments as to the validity of the caveats (and the overclaim) to have been made in circumstances where the first proceeding was settled at an early stage without any submissions being made. [52]-[53]
    3. An abuse of process existed where in an earlier proceeding a claim was made or an issue raised and determined, or where it ought reasonably to have been so made or raised for determination. It was not the case that arguments about the validity of the caveats ought reasonably have been made in the Supreme Court proceeding in circumstances where it was settled at an early stage without submissions being made.   The circumstances underlying this application and the earlier one were different – the consent orders in the Supreme Court proceeding were tied to a particular refinancing facility being sought. [55]-[56]
  6. An application for a stay to allow time to appeal was refused.   The consequence of the orders removing the caveats did not have the effect of extinguishing whatever security the plaintiffs were entitled to over the land.  A caveat did no more than provide notice of an asserted security interest.  It did not create, nor did its removal extinguish, rights over the land.  The only effects of removing the caveats would be: to enable the defendant to refinance, involving discharge of old and registration of new mortgages; (at worst for the plaintiffs) if the properties were ultimately sold, potentially prejudice the priority of their asserted equitable rights as chargee against (hypothetical) equitable claimants to the proceeds of sale.  There was no risk of the defendant dissipating the properties. [63], [65]
  7. Section 91(4) of the Transfer of Land Act, which provides that a “caveat that has lapsed or been removed by an order of a court shall not be renewed by or on behalf of the same person in respect of the same interest” did not prevent lodgement of a fresh caveat where a caveat was removed for claiming the wrong interest (as had occurred here). [65]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Blog 81. Security documents inadequate to create caveatable interest.

Rainford & Ors v SA & RT Tesoriero Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 617, Waller J.

This case is a reminder of the importance of exact drafting of security documents. The facts were –

  • The plaintiffs (Philip, Christopher and Pylades Pty Ltd (Pylades)) were registered proprietors of a property (the Property) as tenants in common. Pylades was the trustee of a family trust. Pylades and another company related to the plaintiffs (Drofniar) owned the shares in a third company (Workspace).
  • By a Deed of Secured Loan (DSA) dated 1 February 2023 the defendant loaned $2.86 m. to Workspace due for repayment on 30 May 2023. Workspace was required to provide security over its land, which it did. Further, cl. 9.3 of the DSA provided that Philip, Pylades and Drofniar (not Christopher) were obliged to “execute deeds of guarantee and indemnity in such form as the Lender may require”.
  • Also on 1 February 2023, Philip (on his own behalf and as director of Workspace) and Christopher (as director of Pylades and Drofniar) executed a General Security Agreement (GSA) and a Guarantee and Indemnity (Guarantee) in favour of the defendant. Although Christopher added his name and signature to each of the DSA, GSA and Guarantee he was not stated to be a party in his own right in any of them.
  • Clause 2.1 of the GSA provided –

“Each of the Grantors as beneficial owners charge in favour of the Secured Party, and grants a Security Interest to the Secured Party by way of charge over, the whole of their Collateral and the Proceeds.”

In the GSA “Collateral” was defined to include all real property of the Grantor and “Security Interest” in relation to any Collateral other than personal property was defined to mean:

“… any mortgage, charge, … which is or has the effect of a security for the payment of a debt or other obligation or the compliance with any other obligation, …”.

  • Clause 5.4 of the Guarantee provided –
    “Upon request in writing by the Lender, the Guarantor shall:

    1. grant to the Lender a legal mortgage of any property … now or hereafter held by that person containing a covenant:
      1. That Philip … Rainford and Pylades … and Drofniar … shall duly pay all monies now or hereafter due and payable to the Lender by them, the Borrower or by any other person named in the Deed or Collateral Document as a Guarantor.
    2. Where property that the Lender requests be given a [sic] security by the Guarantor is held jointly by the Guarantor and another person (not a party to this Guarantee), the Guarantor shall: … “
      1. take such steps … to effect the registration of a legal mortgage over such jointly held land; or
      2. in the case of a corporation, as beneficial owner charge in favour of the Lender … any property … with the payment of indebtedness pursuant to this Deed …”

The Guarantee defined “Securities” to include a ‘General Security Interest’ over all property granted by Philip, Christopher and Pylades as trustee for the family trust.

  • In March 2023, Pylades and Drofniar sold their shares in Workspace to another company. The sale required the consent of the defendant and the defendant thus required execution of a Deed of Variation to the DSA. The Deed of Variation included as parties Workspace, Philip, Christopher (stated to be a party in his own right and described as one of the “Initial Guarantors”), Pylades, Drofniar and other legal and natural persons as “Additional Guarantors”.
  • On 4 August 2023 the plaintiffs entered a contract of sale of the Property due for completion on 20 October.  The purchaser paid the deposit.
  • Workspace failed to repay the loan and on 21 September 2023, the defendant’s solicitors emailed the plaintiffs’ former solicitor stating:

“Pursuant to clause 5.4 of the deed of guarantee and indemnity legal mortgages of over [sic] real property in the name or names of the guarantors jointly and severally. [sic]
Caveats will be placed on title of all land.

Please provide us with title particulars of all land that the guarantors are the registered proprietors of so that mortgage documents can be prepared.”

No title particulars were supplied.

  • Also on 21 September, the defendant caveated over the Property claiming an interest as mortgagee on the grounds of a mortgage with the registered proprietors dated 2 February 2023. The plaintiffs applied under s. 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act to remove the caveat. On the balance of convenience issue the plaintiffs led evidence that the caveat would prevent settlement of the sale with consequential detriment. The plaintiffs also submitted that the defendant had security and potential security over other properties.

Waller J. ordered removal of the caveat, holding –

  1. Clause 2.1 of the GSA created a charge, not a mortgage, by ‘each of the Grantors’ including by Philip and Pylades but not by Christopher. (It was unnecessary to determine whether the reference to Pylades in the various documents was to it in its own right or as trustee of the family trust (and so binding the trust property)). [32]-[34]
  2. Clause 5.4 of the Guarantee did not purport to grant the defendant any interest at the time it was entered into. Rather, it gave the defendant the right to request a Guarantor to grant it “a legal mortgage of any property … now or hereafter held by that person” containing the covenant set out in cl. 5.4(a)(i). If a provision such as cl. 5.4 conferred an immediate right of recourse to the property it would amount to an equitable charge or mortgage, but it would not so amount if it was contingent upon further acts of the parties, such as requiring the lender to make a written request for provision of such a security. Clause 5.4 was of this latter character. This contingency had not been satisfied: the email of 21 September 2023 asked only for title details. [36]-[38]
  3. Further, a caveat could only in form be commensurate to the interest it was designed to protect. This caveat was not so commensurate because Christopher was not a named party to the Guarantee and so the caveat wrongly purported to rely on a “Mortgage” with “The Registered Proprietor(s)”. This caveat was accordingly not limited in its operation to the interest that could be said to have arisen between the relevant parties. [39]-[41]
  4. Although the Deed of Variation named Christopher as a Guarantor and Obligor, and defined “Securities” to include a “General Security Interest” over all property granted by Philip, Christopher and Pylades as trustee, it did not itself create a mortgage over the Property, let alone a mortgage of the kind referred to in the caveat. [42]
  5. Thus the defendant had not established a prima facie case of having an interest in the Property. The balance of convenience would also not have favoured the maintenance of the caveat. [43], [55]

Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Blog 53. Priorities between equitable interests – whether earlier interest postponed for failure to lodge caveat.

The main case in this Blog is UDP Holdings Pty Ltd v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2021] VSC 711 (29 October 2021), Richards J which concerns priorities.  See also Blog posts 13 and 45.

For completeness I first mention Antonie v Leith [2021] VSC 662 (15 October 2021), Matthews AsJ, which simply concerned whether a loan had been repaid.  An agreement, the terms of which were disputed, was made for the plaintiff to lend money to her sister the defendant or their mother, with provision for the plaintiff to lodge a caveat in respect of the loan.  The loan was made, the caveat was lodged, and money equalling the loan amount was paid to the plaintiff by their mother in November 2018, leading to the defendant seeking removal of the caveat.  The plaintiff characterized the repayment not as being of the loan but as an advancement of the defendant’s entitlement under their mother’s Will which would be eventually be repaid to the mother’s estate by deduction from the defendant’s share of the estate.   Matthews AsJ held that the November 2018 payment was of the loan and removed the caveat.

The case the subject of this Blog is a sequel to AE Brighton Holdings Pty Ltd v UDP Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 688 and [2020] VSCA 235, the subject of Blogs 32 and 40.  Those cases had upheld UDP’s caveat over AE Brighton’s land grounded on a constructive trust arising from AE Brighton’s use of the moneys to which UDP was entitled.  Further, in UDP Holdings Pty Ltd v Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] VSC 528 (26 August 2021) Richards J. held that UDP could trace the proceeds of the constructive trust into the land.  The land was sold and the net proceeds of sale, after payment out of UDP’s interest, which interest had priority over all other unregistered interests, remained in court.

The case the subject of this Blog was a dispute about entitlement to the funds in court between two of the holders of later unregistered interests, Temelkovski and Hagit Pty Ltd (Hagit).  The relevant facts were –

  • In 2013 AE Brighton entered a contract to purchase the land.
  • Before settlement of the contract of sale Temelkovski and AE Brighton entered an agreement on 5 November 2013 under which he agreed to make available a cash advance facility secured by a mortgage over the land and other security. The mortgage was executed on this date, with AE Brighton’s sole director Mr Esposito executing it on the company’s behalf.  Temelkovski did not register it or lodge a caveat.
  • The contract of sale was settled on 21 November 2013 and AE Brighton became registered proprietor on 2 December 2013. It drew down on the facility between 4 December 2015 and 25 September 2018.
  • In early March 2018 Hagit offered to lend money to Mr Esposito’s wife Violeta Esposito, who by then was the sole director of AE Brighton. Mr Esposito represented to Hagit that the security would include a second unregistered mortgage over the land.  Hagit’s solicitors conducted a title search which revealed two registered mortgages and two caveats by holders of unregistered interests other than that of Temelkovski.  Mr Esposito represented to Hagit that neither the caveats nor any other security interests would affect Hagit’s proposed security.
  • Ms Esposito signed the relevant documents on 5 March 2018. The security included a caveat and unregistered mortgage over the land.  The mortgage identified the mortgagor as ‘Violeta Stojcevski’ (by which name she was also known).
  • On 5 March 2018 Hagit advanced the funds to Ms Esposito. On 6 March 2018 it caveated over the land.
  • On 2 October 2019 Temelkovski caveated over the land based on the 2013 mortgage.
  • Between 8 and 12 October 2021, relying on an authority given, Hagit ‘amended’ the mortgage by replacing the mortgagor’s name of ‘Violeta Stojcevski’ with AE Brighton’s name.

Her Honour held that Temelkovski had priority –

  1. AE Brighton’s mortgage to Temelkovski remained an equitable mortgage notwithstanding that predated AE Brighton becoming registered proprietor of the land. A valid charge could be granted over future property. [15]
  2. The general rule for resolving competing equitable interests in land was, where the merits were equal, that the first interest in time had priority. However, the earlier interest could be postponed to the later by disentitling conduct by owner of the earlier interest.  The better equity was determined having regard to the conduct of each party in relation to their respective interests, a comparison of that conduct in all the relevant circumstances, and general considerations of fairness and justice.  The mere failure of the holder of the earlier interest to caveat did not dictate its postponement to the holder of a later interest who had searched the Register: it was but one circumstance to be considered. [33]
  3. Temelkovski had the better equity. Assuming, notwithstanding its subsequent amendment of the mortgage, that Hagit’s equitable interest dated from 5 March 2018, it postdated Temelkovski’s interest.  Temelkovski’s interest was not postponed because:

the mortgage was critical to Temelkovski’s decision to lend as it was the primary security; his failure to caveat was by itself insufficient to postpone;

no other conduct of Temelkovski had led Hagit to accept the land as security in the belief that Temelkovski’s interest did not exist – there were no dealings directly between them;

the land was not the primary security for Hagit’s loan;

the title search gave Hagit notice that the land was substantially encumbered, demonstrating that it was prepared to take a significant risk in accepting the property as security. [35]-[40], [43].

   Philip H. Barton

   Owen Dixon Chambers West

   Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Blog 45. Getting your priorities straight.

This Blog deals with two recent caveat cases also involving priorities between interests in land, one simple, one complex. 

In Capital One Securities Pty Ltd v Lesic & Anor [2020] VSC 781, Ginnane J, 13 November 2020, the facts were –

  • Vongsa and Suzana Soch were registered proprietors of a property subject to a first mortgage to a bank and a second mortgage to the plaintiff securing a claimed debt of about $149,000.
  • A mortgagee’s auction had occurred.  The sale was not yet completed.
  • On 27 March 2020 the first defendant lodged a caveat claiming an implied resulting or resulting trust.  On 29 October 2020 he obtained a County Court judgment for $349,163.62 against Vongsa Soch for default in making discovery and in not attending a mediation, including a declaration that he had an equitable interest in the property and was entitled to maintain a caveat over the title. 

The plaintiff applied under the Transfer of Land Act s. 90(3) to remove the caveat.  Its director deposed to loan advances and that it would suffer a shortfall at settlement of the sale.   Ginnane J. removed the caveat and ordered the first defendant to pay costs on a standard basis.  Although there was a prima facie case that the first defendant had an equitable interest in the land, the plaintiff’s interest as second mortgagee had priority and the balance of convenience favoured removal of the caveat because it was impeding settlement of the mortgagee’s sale.

Roberts Gray Pty Ltd v Brunner & Ors [2021] VSC 76, Daly AsJ, 9 March 2021.

The facts were –

  • The first defendant (Brunner) owned a disused mining site at Yandoit Creek Road Franklinford worth about $320,000 (‘the land’). 
  • In 2016 a company (‘Vesterdix’) entered a rental agreement with TL Rentals Pty Ltd (‘TL Rentals’).   Brunner guaranteed Vesterdix’s obligations and as security agreed to mortgage the land to TL Rentals.  On 30 March 2017 TL Rentals caveated over the land based on this mortgage.  Vesterdix subsequently defaulted and TL Rentals eventually claimed a debt of about $96,000. 
  • On 11 April 2017 the fourth defendant (‘PG Walton’) registered a mortgage over the land to secure a short term advance. 
  • On 23 June 2017 it was agreed between the third defendant (Kellam) and Brunne that Kellam lend Brunner $30,000 and Brunner charge any freehold land he owned in favour of Kellam (‘June 2017 agreement’).  A copy of this document was in evidence but there was no direct or documentary evidence of the actual advance of monies.
  • Kellam also alleged that in August 2017 he acquired the debt (then standing at $188,065.50) and first mortgage held by PG Walton and made a further advance to Brunner.  There was, however, no direct or documentary evidence of payment to PG Walton.   However, PG Walton’s solicitors subsequently sent to Kellam’s solicitors the certificate of title and a discharge of its mortgage.  Kellam did not lodge these documents for registration. 
  • On 26 September 2017 Brunner executed a mortgage in favour of Kellam (‘Kellam mortgage’) under which Brunner promised to pay the mortgagee on demand all moneys owing by the mortgagor to the mortgagee including the moneys under a loan agreement between the parties executed that day.  However, no loan agreement was in evidence other than the June 2017 agreement.   There was no direct evidence of the sums secured and conflicting evidence about the size of the mortgage debt. 
  • From 2016 to 2018 the plaintiff (Roberts Gray), whose principal was Roberts, acted for Brunner including in a Family Court proceeding fixed for trial on 6 July 2018.  Brunner was non-compliant with financial disclosure orders and had not put Roberts Gray in funds.    
  • On 11 May 2018 Brunner emailed a draft financial statement to Roberts, prepared with the assistance of an accountant (‘the accountant’), which included: under the heading ‘Other mortgage payments’ that Kellam was the lender, that the address of the property was Yandoit Creek Road Franklinford and that the average weekly amount was $360; under the heading ‘Other mortgages’ that Brunner was the borrower, that ‘your share’ was 100% and ‘amount of your share’ was $200,000 (without specifying any security property).  However, the section headed ‘Liabilities’ did not list Kellam as a creditor.
  • On 5 July 2018 Brunner executed a document charging in favour of Roberts Gray ‘all land owned by me … now or in future as security for the payment of all professional fees and disbursements now owing or at any time may be owing by me to Roberts Gray Pty Ltd for legal services provided to me’.  (Roberts Gray subsequently conceded that the charge was ineffective to the extent that it sought an equitable interest in properties not legally and beneficially owned by Brunner, ie any property other than the land).
  • The Family Court trial date of 6 July was vacated.  On 20 July Brunner’s financial statement, in substantially similar form to the draft, was filed.  The reference to the payment of $360 per week to Mr Kellam remained.  However, under the heading ‘other mortgages’, appeared: ‘Jon Brunner borrowed against Yandoit and 308/6 Victoria Street the sum of $600,000’.
  • The plaintiff ceased acting for Brunner, claimed a debt of about $85,000 with interest, and on 30 August 2018 caveated over the land claiming an interest as chargee pursuant to an agreement with Brunner, J. B. & F. Investments Pty Ltd, and Vesterdix.  Brunner was the sole director of both companies and deposed that there was no agreement between Roberts Gray and either company.
  • On 10 December 2018 the Kellam mortgage was lodged for registration.
  • Following notice of this lodgment Roberts Gray commenced a proceeding seeking relief, including: an order under s. 90(2) that the Registrar of Titles delay registering the Kellam mortgage; an order that it have leave to amend the grounds of claim in its caveat by deleting all parties to the agreement with Brunner except itself; a declaration that it held an equitable charge; and an order for sale of the land.
  • Registration of Kellam’s mortgage was ordered to be delayed, eventually until the trial and determination of the proceeding.    
  • On 20 February 2020 Brunner was declared bankrupt.
  • Roberts deposed or gave evidence:
    • that on 25 August 2017 the solicitors for the other party in the Family Court proceeding, Lander & Rogers, sent a copy of the June 2017 agreement to his firm;
    • that on 2 November 2017 Lander & Rogers wrote referring to the June 2017 agreement and to a loan from PG Walton to Vesterdix of $165,000 secured by a mortgage over the land and another property.
    • that on receipt of the draft financial statement on 11 May 2018 he knew of the $30,000 loan by Kellam to Brunner;
    • that when the charge was executed (on 5 July 2018) he believed that this loan had been paid off or (he also deposed) significantly reduced but had not contacted Kellam about this;
    • denying that before execution of the charge he was aware that Kellam had an interest in the land or that Brunner (who deposed to the contrary) had so instructed him, or that the Kellam mortgage existed, and stating that before taking the charge he did not do a title search or attempt to ascertain what interest if any PG Walton or TL Rentals had in the land;
    • denying that Brunner told him, immediately before filing the financial statement on 20 July, of the Kellam mortgage;
    • stating that on 20 July 2018 the accountant told him that the loan of $30,000 had been repaid and had not told him of a mortgage securing $250,000 plus interest.  He denied (contrary to evidence of the accountant) that the accountant had told him that the ‘private client mortgage’ over Yandoit secured $250,000 plus interest and denied that the accountant had met him before 20 July;
    • that he had never seen any document evidencing a loan by Kellam in any amount other than $30,000;
    • that he believed that the sworn financial statement “loaded up” the land to defeat the interests of the other party.
  • Brunner gave evidence that: Roberts did not ask him how much equity he had in the land; and he did not tell Roberts that he had no equity in the land, as there was no need because, having prepared Brunner’s financial statements, Roberts knew this.

Kellam submitted that he held two distinct security interests over the land: a subrogated right to the PG Walton mortgage; and an equitable interest by reason of his possession of the unregistered Kellam mortgage, the discharge of PG Walton mortgage and the certificate of title.  It was common ground that the interest in the land of TL Rentals had priority over any interest of Roberts Gray’s.  TL Rentals abided the outcome of the proceeding.

Daly AsJ held –

  1. On the balance of probabilities Kellam paid out the PG Walton mortgage.  While there was no evidence of the time and amount of funds transferred, the PG Walton loan was by inference discharged before October 2017, when the certificate of title and discharge of mortgage were delivered to Kellam’s solicitors.  The timing of the execution of the epitome of the Kellam mortgage was also consistent with this. [125]-[127]  
  2. Ordinarily, absent evidence that the epitome of mortgage was either a forgery or a sham, its very existence was compelling evidence of the evidence and validity of an equitable mortgage. [129], [133]
  3. The authorities were divided on whether a party claiming to be subrogated to the rights of a prior mortgagee was entitled to the benefit of the terms of the underlying loan contract.  The better view was that the subrogated party did not automatically acquire identical contractual rights to the original interest holder, such as, for example the interest rate payable by the mortgagor to the original lender. [123]
  4. Kellam had discharged the onus of establishing his entitlement to be subrogated to the rights of PG Walton under the PG Walton mortgage to the extent of the sum paid by him to it to discharge its loan to Brunner secured by the mortgage, plus interest. [83], [118], [131] 
  5. As Kellam was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of PG Walton under its mortgage, and this mortgage was registered, Kellam had priority over TL Rentals and Roberts Gray with respect to the amounts paid by him or on his behalf to PG Walton. [131]
  6. Any sums secured by the Kellam mortgage which were not referable to the PG Walton mortgage were thus secured only by an equitable mortgage, which ranked behind the interest of TL Rentals. [131]
  7. As to whether Kellam’s interest as the holder of an equitable mortgage should prevail over Roberts Gray’s later interest as chargee –

    (a)    Where merits were equal, the general principle applying to competing equi­table interests was that priority in time of creation gave the better equity. [118], [141], [160]

    (b)   Where merits were unequal and favoured the later interest, as for instance where the owner of the later interest was led by conduct of the owner of the earlier interest to acquire the later interest in the belief or on the supposition that the earlier interest did not then exist, the later interest would have priority.   It was always necessary to characterise the conduct of the holder of the earlier interest in order to determine whether, in all the circumstances, that conduct was such that in fairness and in justice the earlier interest should be postponed to the later. [141], [143], [144]

    (c)   The mere failure of the holder of a prior equitable interest in land to lodge a caveat did not in itself involve the loss of priority which the time of the creation would otherwise give. [144] (d)    A person taking an interest with actual, imputed, or constructive notice of an earlier interest took subject to that interest, unless the earlier interest holder had engaged in conduct to induce the belief in the later interest holder that the earlier interest no longer existed. [156], [157], [161]

    (d)     A person taking an interest with actual, imputed, or constructive notice of an earlier interest took subject to that interest, unless the earlier interest holder had engaged in conduct to induce the belief in the later interest holder that the earlier interest no longer existed. [156], [157], [161]

    (e)    The onus rested on the holder of a later interest to show that the earlier should be postponed. [84]

    (f)    The evidence was inconclusive on whether Roberts Gray had actual notice of the Kellam mortgage.  However, it would have been open to Roberts Gray (and prudent) to conduct a title search before taking the charge.  This was inexcusable in the context of a priority dispute.  Although a title search at the time the charge was taken would not have disclosed Kellam’s interest in the land the PG Walton mortgage and the TL Rentals caveat would have been revealed.  Upon such a discovery, Roberts Gray would have been in a position to make more fulsome inquiries of PG Walton and/or TL Rentals and Brunner.  Accordingly Roberts Gray had at least constructive notice of Kellam’s interest. [118], [162], [165], [167]-[169]

    (g)     However, even if this finding of constructive interest was incorrect, there was no basis for postponing Kellam’s equitable interest to Roberts Gray’s interest.  Kellam had not so conducted himself as to induce a party in the position of Roberts Gray into believing there was no prior interest holder.  The agreement by Brunner and Kellam to keep their arrangements private did not misrepresent the position to third parties. [118], [170], [171] 

  8. The application to amend the caveat by deleting J. B & F Investments Pty Ltd and Vesterdix would be granted because:

    (a)    it would not alter the estate or interest claimed in the caveat, but amend the grounds of the claim, with no prejudice to anyone; [178]

    (b)    Roberts Gray undoubtedly had an interest in the land as chargee.  The ques­tion of the validity of the charge has fallen away and the only dispute was over priority, which should be determined on the merits; [179]

    (c)    although less latitude was affordable to a caveat lodged by a solicitor, as op­posed to one prepared by a lay person, the prejudice to Roberts Gray of not being able to amend the caveat outweighed this consideration. [118], [180]

  9. Given that Kellam stood in the shoes of the holder of a registered mortgage, he had a prima facie entitlement to take possession of and sell the land, provided the requirements of s. 77 of the TLA had been fulfilled, and subject to his obligations to account to TL Rentals and Roberts Gray.  However, there was no evidence that the threshold requirements of s. 77 had been met, and given that the parties all agreed on sale, the court would appoint the trustee in bankruptcy to do this and account to the interest holders. [118], [183]

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

Tuesday, 29 June 2021