Category: Prohibition (extent of)

Blog 69. Claim for compensation under TLA s. 118 fails.

187 Settlement Road v Kennards Storage Management [2022] VSC 771, Gorton J., (14 December 2022)

Note: In this case Gorton J. dismissed a claim for compensation under s. 118 for alleged lodgment of a caveat “without reasonable cause”.   His Honour conducted an intricate analysis of the law.  In particular:

  1. His Honour pointed out that the commonly judicially approved test for “without reasonable cause”, ie whether the caveator did not have an honest belief based on reasonable grounds that it had a caveatable interest: sat comfortably with the text of s. 118 where there was some factual uncertainty but where the legal consequences were otherwise straightforward; but did not easily apply where a caveator had an honest belief as to a set of facts the legal consequences of which arguably did, but might not, give rise to a caveatable interest.  In the latter case it was preferable simply to ask: was the caveat lodged “without reasonable cause”?
  2. His Honour dealt with the situation whether, even if a caveat was lodged without reasonable cause, it was just to order compensation if there was no causal connection between the caveat and any loss, or if by the time the caveat became a source of loss there was a proper basis for its lodgment.
  3. His Honour also dealt with the consequences, for the purposes of s. 118, of the prohibition on any dealings with the property and the claim of a freehold estate.
  4. His Honour considered complex issues of contractual interpretation and in what circumstances a right of first refusal, ie a conditional right to purchase under the contract, gave rise to a caveatable interest.

The facts were –

  • 187 Settlement Road Pty Ltd (187SR) was registered proprietor of land in Thomastown (the property).  GDM Self Storage Group Pty Ltd (GDM) owned the self-storage business conducted there.  Leslie Smith controlled both companies.   Kennards Storage Management Pty Ltd (KSM) was associated with Sam Kennard.
  • On 1 September 2015 187SR and KSM executed an agreement with a term of 5 years commencing that day, renewable at the option of either party.   Under the agreement: the “Centre” was defined to be the self-storage centre at the property and the “Business” was defined to be the operation of the Centre; 187SR agreed to develop and then maintain the Centre and KSM agreed to provide management services there and 187SR agreed to pay fees including a “performance incentive fee” if the property were sold.  Clause 16, headed “First and Last Right of Refusal”, provided that during and for 2 years after the end of that agreement the Owner (ie 187SR) must not, without first making the same offer to KSM (Offer), inter alia, sell Centre or the property (cl. 16(a)).  Under cl. 16(b) the Offer to sell was required to be in writing accompanied by a contract of sale specifying the purchase price, deposit, settlement date and any other material terms and KSM had 14 days to accept it.  Clause 16(c) provided that: “The Owner must not … sell … the Centre except at a … price not less than and on terms and conditions not more favourable to KSM than as specified in any Offer made pursuant to sub-clauses (a) and (b) above, provided that before offering to grant on such lesser terms to another party, those terms must be first offered to KSM, so KSM has the last … right to purchase all or any part of the Property or the Centre”.
  • Following construction the Centre commenced operation shortly thereafter in August 2019.  KSM operated the Business.  However, due to complications attributable to 187SR being a trustee company, Smith and Kennard then deemed it preferable for GDM (not 187SR) to own the Business (as occurred at certain premises in Cheltenham).  More particularly:
    • After KSM raised the potential problem of the trusteeship the chief financial officer of KSM emailed Smith on 27 November 2019 saying: “I see the new Mgmt agreement [that is, the agreement for the premises in Cheltenham] was signed with GDM Self Storage – could we adjust the Thomastown agreement to this ABN and then we should be sorted?”
    • On 2 December 2019 Smith responded: “We are OK for the TT [Thomastown] management agreement to be under GDM Self Storage as well”.
    • On 12 December 2019 a financial controller at KSM emailed Smith attaching a document (“the 2019 agreement”) and saying:

      “As discussed … please find attached new management agreement for Thomastown …. This is between KSM and GDM Self Storage and this agreement supersedes the old SSAMA dated 1st September 2015 with 187 Settlement Road.  Please sign and return, thanks.”

  • Smith then signed and returned the 2019 agreement.  This was in the same terms as the 2015 agreement (even being dated and applying from 1 September 2015) with an additional clause providing that it superseded “Self Storage Asset Management Agreement dated 1st September 2015 between Kennards Storage Management Pty Ltd … and 187SR Pty Ltd …”.  This document also provided for “performance incentive fee” if the property were sold payable by GDM, calculated by reference to the EBITDA of the business.
  • In late September 2020, in response to Smith’s invitation, Kennard expressed interest in purchasing the property and the Cheltenham property.  Smith provided valuations, the valuation for the property being $19 m.
  • On 28 October Kennard emailed an offer to purchase the property for $16.2 m.  The email included: “This offer is made separately to the terms of the Management Agreement and does not forfeit any rights and obligations outlined by Clause 16 of the agreement”.
  • On 4 November 187SR obtained a signed “offer to purchase” the property for $18.5 m. from a third party.  On 5 November Smith informed Kennard of this and of his belief that the deal would be done with the third party at $19 m. and asked Kennard to consider his position.  On 6 November Kennard emailed: “I guess we should revert to the mechanism in the Management Agreement”.
  • On 6 November Smith signed and returned the offer to purchase to the third party, altering the price to $19 m., but stating that it was subject to his obligations to Kennard or KSM.
  • On 9 November Smith informed Kennard that he had received an offer at $19 m., that he had instructed solicitors to prepare contracts, and asked Kennard to advise his position. Kennard replied, saying: “Thanks Les.  Send it to us when its ready.”
  • On 10 November Kennard advised Smith that his company would not buy the Cheltenham property.
  • On 13 November Kennard instructed his solicitors to caveat over the property, leaving it to them to prepare the caveat documentation. The solicitors lodged a caveat by KSM prohibiting registration of any dealings with the property and claiming a “Freehold Estate”.
  • On 8 December Smith emailed Kennard that the third party had now also offered to purchase the Cheltenham property, also advising the gross offer for both properties, and stating “It is extremely important to the company to deal with both assets ….”, and “please advise what you would like to do in regards both properties”.
  • On 10 December Kennard sought the sale contract for both properties and stated

    “We should follow the process agreed and in accordance with the Right of Refusal outlined in the management agreement. …”

  • Smith did not provide to any contract to Kennard but on 23 December 187SR and GDM respectively agreed to sell the property and Business to the third party.
  • On 24 December Smith asked Kennard to remove the caveat. KSM alleged that it was a willing buyer for the property at $19m. and sought a written offer from 187SR in accordance with the 2015 agreement.  Dispute then arose about whether 187SR was required to make this offer, or whether any offer would require KSM to purchase both properties.  Then contracts were provided by 187SR and GDM, KSM raised whether it was being offered terms identical to those offered to the third party, KSM purported to accept the offers, argument erupted over whether acceptance was too late, and on 10 February KSM removed the caveat.  The sale to third party was completed on 19 February 2021.
  • 187SR sued KSM claiming compensation under the Transfer of Land Act s. 118.  It contended that the caveat was lodged without reasonable cause and delayed the completion of the sale to the third party giving rise to additional amounts it had to pay to its financier.

The Transfer of Land Act s. 118 provided:

Any person lodging with the Registrar without reasonable cause any caveat under this Act shall be liable to make to any person who sustains damage thereby such compensation as a court deems just and orders.

KSM contended that because the “first and last right of refusal” granted by 187SR in the 2015 agreement was expressed to apply for 2 years after its end, it remained operative in 2020, because the 2015 agreement was only superseded by the 2019 agreement in December 2019, thereby giving it a caveatable interest.

His Honour accepted Kennard’s evidence that he believed that KSM had a right of first refusal and that it had not been complied with. 

GDM paid to KSM, under sufferance, the performance incentive fee claimed by KSM.  This did not account for rent payable by GDM to 187SR, but if this rent was to be taken into account in determining the EBITDA, then no performance incentive fee was payable.  GDM sued KSM for return of the performance incentive fee.  The proceedings were heard together.

Gorton J. dismissed the application under s. 118 and ordered the return of the performance incentive fee, holding –    

  1. Smith was acting on behalf of both 187SR and GDM when he participated in the exchanges preceding the 2019 agreement.  Conceptually, these communications, together with the signing of the 2019 agreement and the subsequent management of the Business by KSM, revealed that an agreement was reached that included Smith on behalf of 187SR agreeing that the 2015 agreement would be wholly discharged and replaced by the 2019 agreement.  This conclusion was compelled by: the change in the entity that was to own the business; the communications preceding the 2019 agreement; the text of the 2019 agreement, in particular the expression that it “supersedes” the 2015 agreement and the backdating of the 2019 agreement to 1 September 2015 and expressing that it was to commence from that date. [15], [20], [21]
  2. Accordingly from the time of execution of the 2019 agreement the parties were discharged from all obligations under the 2015 agreement, including any obligations imposed on 187SR by the 2015 agreement expressed to survive its termination. [20]-[22]
  3. Accordingly, although as at December 2020 GDM was obliged to give KSM a “first and last right of refusal” if it wished to sell the business, 187SR was not so obliged as regards sale of the property, whereby KSM did not have a caveatable interest. [23], [24]
  4. The test whether the caveat was lodged “without reasonable cause” within the meaning of s. 118 was often re-expressed as whether the caveator did not have an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that it had a caveatable interest. The re-expressed test sat comfortably with the text of s. 118 where, although there was some factual uncertainty, the legal consequences were otherwise straightforward.  However, it sat less comfortably where there was, as here, a complex legal dispute as to whether a first and last right of refusal, that the parties believed existed, was legally sufficient to give rise to a caveatable interest: it did not easily apply where a caveator had an honest belief as to a set of facts the legal consequences of which arguably did, but might not, give rise to a caveatable interest.  If the caveator believed that he or she probably had a caveatable interest, but recognised that the position was uncertain, was that an honest belief in a caveatable interest?   In these circumstances, it was preferable to return to the text of the statute: was the caveat lodged “without reasonable cause”?  The fact that a caveat might be lodged with reasonable cause yet to protect an uncertain interest was apparent from previous authority. [25], [28], [29]
  5. Both parties believed that there was a contractual right of first refusal exercisable against 187SR, and through Smith 187SR incorrectly believed that it had complied with its obligations. [26], [27], [32]-[34], [37]
  6. If, however, contrary to his Honour’s view but nonetheless believed to be so by the parties, 187SR had still contractually been bound to make KSM an offer of first refusal, this right would not per se give rise to an equitable interest because it did not, of itself, give the holder the right to call for a conveyance. No interest would arise if the owner was still absolutely free to sell or not. [39]
  7. However, if a right of first refusal was expressed in positive terms that applied when a contingency was satisfied, then equity would ordinarily intervene once the contingency was satisfied. 187SR’s argument that cl. 16 of the 2015 agreement did not impose a positive obligation on it, on the satisfaction of a contingency, to make an offer to KSM, but merely prevented it from selling to anyone else unless it first made an offer to KSM, had force but the position was not without difficulty.  It was, at least, well arguable that if 187SR were to make an offer to sell the property, then it was positively obliged to make an offer on those terms also to KSM.  It was at least arguable that by signing the 6 November 2020 offer and manifesting a clear intention to sell the property on those terms, or by signing the 23 December 2020 agreements, both in circumstances where 187SR had informed the third party that KSM had a right of first refusal, 187SR fell under an enforceable contractual obligation to make an offer in those terms to KSM.  On balance, if the 2015 agreement had applied, a court probably would have ordered 187SR to offer to sell the properties to KSM on the terms contained in the 23 December 2020 intertwined agreements.  However, the matter was not straightforward. [27], [39], [40], [42]-[46]
  8. For the reasons set out above, by the time the caveat was lodged, having regard to the complexity of the legal argument as to whether cl. 16 would give rise to a caveatable interest, his Honour was not satisfied that KSM lodged the caveat without reasonable cause. It had reasonable cause. [47], [48], [52]
  9. Not detracting from this conclusion was that the caveat precluded all dealings with the property and claimed a freehold interest. If KSM was entitled to lodge a caveat, it was entitled to lodge one that precluded any dealings.  As to claiming a “freehold estate”, the right that KSM was asserting was the equitable right to obtain the freehold on a sale, and although perhaps it would have been more precise to claim a conditional right to purchase under the contract, this imprecision was insufficient to establish lack of reasonable cause. [49]
  10. Although it may be correct, as the caveat was lodged by KSM’s solicitors, to consider that KSM’s solicitors’ mind that was the mind of KSM for the purpose of determining reasonable grounds, even so, and even on the basis that the person preparing and lodging the document had legal training, the caveat was not lodged without reasonable cause. [50]
  11. Further, even if the interest asserted or wording used in the caveat rendered the caveat not lodged with reasonable cause, it would not be “just” to award 187SR any compensation unless it could be shown that this assertion or use caused any loss that would not have been caused anyway if the “right” interest were asserted or wording was used. This was not proved. [50], [65]
  12. The caveat was also not lodged prematurely. But in any event, by the time that the caveat interfered with 187SR’s intentions and, as 187SR alleged caused it loss, 187SR had signed the offers.  In reality, it was probably the maintenance of a caveat at a time when someone tried to register an instrument that caused loss, rather than the “lodging” of the caveat.  In any event, it would not be “just” for the purposes of s. 118 to order that a party pay compensation because a caveat was lodged prematurely if, by the time the caveat became a source of loss, there was a proper basis for its lodgement. [51], [65]
  13. Accordingly, 187SR’s claim for compensation under s. 118 failed. But, if this was incorrect, the process of determining compensation involved two steps: first to ascertain a date by which, but for the caveat, the sale of the business would have been completed; second to ascertain what loss KSM suffered, if any, by reason of the delay between that date and 19 February 2021 being the date of completion of the sale.  If there had been no caveat settlement would have taken place by 22 January 2021 and the loss from delay would have been $274,658 being the increased amount that 187SR had to pay to its financier. [52]-[54], [60], [63], [64]
  14. GDM was entitled to return of the “performance incentive fee” because it was not payable under the terms of the 2019 agreement. [79]

  Philip H. Barton

          Owen Dixon Chambers West

        Wednesday, March 22, 2023

 

34. Costs – Whether indemnity costs against unsuccessful caveator – Whether solicitor should bear costs.

Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832 (20 December 2019), Garde J; Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Ors (No 2) [2020] VSC 37 (14 February 2020).

Comment.   In the first Alliance Developments case Garde J comprehensively examines the law on award of indemnity costs against a caveator and a solicitor and on the importance of adhering to proper conduct in caveating.  The second Alliance Developments case is a brief further application of these principles to later costs. 

Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Anor [2019] VSC 832. 

The facts were –

·   The plaintiff (Alliance) initially had three shareholders including Mr Abela (Abela) and the first defendant Mr Arbab (Arbab) they being the the sole directors.  

·   In 2013 Alliance purchased and became registered proprietor of land at California Gully with the intention of subdividing it and erecting homes on it.  Arbab claimed he contributed funds to the purchase.

·  In 2014 Alliance, on the nomination of the purchaser Abela, became registered proprietor of land at Laverton North.

·     By August 2015 Arbab was no longer a director of Alliance and his shareholding had been reduced from 50% to 8%.  He disputed this, claiming he did not agree to it. 

·    Arbab retained a firm (“the firm”) with a sole principal (“the solicitor”) for advice.  The firm sought advice from counsel.  In October 2015 counsel advised on the dispute concerning the company, and advised that, if, as to which counsel stated he had not been instructed, the funds supplied by Arbab bore a certain complexion that it should lodge a caveat over the California Gully property.  Counsel did not refer to the Laverton North property.

·  In 2015 Arbab commenced proceedings under the Corporations Act which were subsequently amended. 

·   In March 2016 the firm sent a letter of demand to the third shareholder and his company concerning a partnership or profit sharing dispute. 

·      Later in 2016 the solicitor lodged a caveat over the Laverton North property on behalf of Arbab.  The estate or interest claimed was a freehold estate and the prohibition was absolute.  The ground of the claim was “Implied, Resulting, Constructive Trust”.

·   In March 2018 the solicitor lodged a caveat over the California Gully property on behalf of Arbab.  The estate or interest claimed was a freehold estate and the prohibition was absolute. The ground relied upon was: “Registered proprietor(s), being entitled to possession of the Certificate of Title for the land and to prevent improper dealing”.

·   Later in 2018 on the application of Alliance the Registrar gave a notice under the Transfer of Land Act s. 89A(1) that both caveats would lapse unless the application was abandoned or notice was given to the Registrar that proceedings were on foot to substantiate the claim of the caveator.  In response the firm gave notice that such proceedings were on foot.  In particular: the firm advised that the Corporations Act proceeding was on foot and was set down for trial; the solicitor certified in substance that she had retained the evidence supporting the caveats and had taken reasonable steps to ensure that they were correct; the letter attached a notice signed by the solicitor falsely to the effect that proceedings were on foot in a court of competent jurisdiction to substantiate Arbab’s claims.  The Registrar accordingly took no further action. 

·    On 23 August 2019 Alliance’s solicitors wrote to the firm stating that Arbab did not have a caveatable interest, that application would be made under the TLA s. 90(3) unless the caveats were withdrawn, that, referring to the Supreme Court decisions, they had instructions that may give rise to Arbab’s advisers being liable, and that they were concerned at the certification to the Registrar and the solicitor’s failure to produce any documentation substantiating the caveatable interests claimed.  This letter drew a combatative response from the solicitor on 25 August. 

·    In September Alliance commenced a proceeding seeking relief under s. 90(3).  The necessary court documents were served on Arbab and on the firm.  Between 16 and 30 September:

o   the solicitor said she did not have instructions to accept service and incorrectly disputed that there had been valid service on the Arbab (served at the address stated in the caveat);

o   the solicitor said that both she and client were overseas and she could not get instructions and did not act for the caveator;

o     the solicitor emailed the Court advising that she did not have instructions to act in the proceeding due to an unidentified potential conflict of interest;

o   on 25 September another solicitor appeared in court as agent for the caveator, directions were given including for filing of material by Arbab, and the proceeding was adjourned with the caveator being ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the adjournment on an indemnity basis;

o    on 26 September the solicitor emailed the plaintiff’s solicitors confirming that she did not hold instructions but attaching an email from the caveator stating in substance that he would agree to removal of the caveats for particular reasons with costs, and that for medical reasons he had been unable to deal with the application;

o   on 30 September the solicitor advised the plaintiff’s solicitors that the caveator had not so agreed until 25 September. 

·      On 3 October the caveator emailed the Court and the plaintiff’s solicitors, agreeing to pay the costs of the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, but not to their amount without further information.  On that day, no material having been filed by the caveator who also did not appear, Ginnane J. ordered removal of the caveats and required that any application for indemnity costs be by summons.

The plaintiff issued such a summons seeking indemnity costs against caveator, the firm and the solicitor under s. 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which gave the Court a general discretion as to costs, and under r. 63.23(1) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which gave the Court power to make a ‘wasted costs order’ against the solicitor of a party to litigation.   The evidence included that Alliance had entered into a contract to purchase another property (as to which the evidence was conflicting).  Arbab elected to waive legal professional privilege and the solicitor deposed to her instructions.

Garde J held that Alliance’s costs up to and including 3 October 2019 were payable on an indemnity basis jointly and severally by the caveator and the solicitor on the following grounds – 

1.  The estate or interest claimed in a caveat, its ground, and the nature of the prohi­bition were of prime importance.  Examples of inaccuracies in caveats from previous cases were: “an interest as chargee” based on an implied, resulting or constructive trust; an “[e]quitable interest as a 50% shareholder of the property pursuant to a trust Deed” – a shareholder has no caveatable interest in land belonging to a company; a claim by an unregistered mortgagee to an absolute prohibition on dealings which stultified the exercise of a power of sale by a registered mortgagee.  By contrast, as illustrated in in Lawrence & Hansen Group Pty Ltd v Young [2017] VSCA 172, where only one of two registered proprietors gave a charge, a claim for absolute prohibition was sufficiently clear and should be construed as limited to the interest of the charging joint proprietor. [16]-[20], [56], Footnote 15

2.   The purposes of requiring the caveator to specify the estate or interest claimed were to enable: the registered proprietor to ascertain the claim to be met; the Registrar to determine whether a dealing lodged for registration was inconsistent with that claimed; the Registrar to determine whether a caveator’s notice was of a proceeding to substantiate the interest claimed and satisfied s. 89A(3)(b). [21]-[22] 

3.   However, if a caveator had more or different rights in land than those claimed, the caveator could lodge another caveat claiming the additional interests. [23]

4.   As to the claim in the Laverton North caveat of a freehold estate on the ground of a trust: the ground was expressed generally without referring to any agreement or basis, nor descending into particulars or explanation of how the alleged trust or freehold interest arose (there were three kinds of freehold estates – most commonly a fee simple, but also a fee tail and a life estate). [25], Footnote 15

5.  The claim made in the California Gully caveat was misconceived and nonsensical. As Alliance had been its registered proprietor since 2017 the ground of claim was suitable only for a registered proprietor who sought to receive notification from the Registrar of the lodgement of a dealing affecting the land.   Whatever Arbab’s claim – whether pursuant to any agreement or financial contribution or otherwise – it was not referred to in the caveat. [26]-[29], [65]-[68]

6.  The notice given by the solicitor to the Registrar was wrong and misleading.  The Corporations Act proceeding sought orders related to the shareholdings not to substantiate the estate or interest claimed in the caveats. [33]-[34]

7.   The lodging of a caveat was a serious business. His Honour set out why this was so and what the proper purpose of lodging a caveat was, referringto Goldstraw v Goldstraw [2002] VSC 491; Piroshenko v Grojsman & Ors (2010) 27 VR 489; Love v Kempton [2010] VSC 254; Campbell v Pastras & Anor [2015] VSC 162. [56]-[59].

8.   After referring to the criteria in Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v Inter­national Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 and Ugly Tribe Company Pty Ltd v Sikola & Ors [2001] VSC 189, Arbab was ordered to pay indemnity costs because 

(a)  he agreed to pay costs on 25 September 2019 and indemnity costs on 3 October 2019, disputing only the final amount;

(b)  the caveats were lodged and maintained on his instructions;

(c)  the caveats were misconceived and without merit;

(d)  the caveats were lodged and relied on without regard for known facts and clearly established law;

(e)  the caveats were intended as a bargaining chip in the Corporations proceeding; and

(f) it would be unfair to the other shareholders if Alliance bore the difference between an indemnity costs and a standard costs order. [60]-[73]

9.  The Court’s power under r 63.23 reflected the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to supervise its own affairs. The inherent jurisdiction required a serious dereliction of duty or gross negligence, but this was unnecessary under r 63.23.  Under r 63.23, a solicitor’s negligence or failure to act with reasonable competence may justify a personal costs order.  His Honour set out matters found relevant by previous judges in the exercise of the wasted costs jurisdiction in  Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (No 5) [2014] VSC 400; (2014) 48 VR 1;  Apollo 169 Management Pty Ltd v Pinefield Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] VSC; Sekhon & Anor v Chandyoke & Anor [2018] VSC 327 (Blog 17); McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Anor (2000) 74 ALJR 1000; Pearl Lingerie Australia Pty Ltd v TGY Pty Ltd; Pearl Lingerie Australia Pty Ltd v John Giarratana Pearl Lingerie [2012] VSC 451; Gatto Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd v Mountney [2016] VSC 752; and White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1988) 156 ALR 169.  [75]-[84]

10.The firm had a paramount duty to the Court and in the administration of justice to act honestly in relation to the dispute. These duties included a duty on the factual and legal material available not to make a claim or respond to a claim in a civil proceeding without a proper basis.  The firm was required not to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive. [86]-[87]

11. Assuming the standard laid down by Dixon J. in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 applied, his Honour was satisfied to a comfortable level of satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that the firm (and solicitor) failed to act with reasonable competence and was negligent and in breach of duties to the Court in:

(a)  the drafting of the caveats;

(b)  the s 89A application;

(c)  the misrepresentations to the Registrar;

(d)  the refusal to withdraw the caveats to avoid the proceeding;

(e)  the failure to acknowledge that the caveats were unsustainable; and

(f)   the failure to brief counsel with the relevant facts, or if in doubt, obtain counsel’s opinion on whether the caveats were maintainable. [88]-[90]

In Alliance Developments Pty Ltd v Arbab & Ors (No 2) [2020] VSC 37 Garde J held that the plaintiff’s costs after 3 October 2019 were payable on an indemnity basis jointly and severally by the caveator and the solicitor for similar reasons to the previous costs order, including that the solicitor had acted contrary to the overarching principles set out in the Civil Procedure Act, including the obligation to act honestly, the requirement to have a proper basis for a civil claim, and the obligation not to mislead or deceive.

Philip H. Barton

Owen Dixon Chambers West

5 May 2020

3. Principles applicable to application to remove caveat under s. 90(3) of TLA

  • Absolute prohibition

  • Circumstances in which entitlement to payment for work on land caveatable

  • Injunction against future caveat

  • Amendment of caveat

  • Costs

  • Interest claimed being “implied, resulting or constructive trust”

  • Commentary

Yamine v Mazloum [2017] VSC 601 (3 October 2017) John Dixon J.

The timeline was –

Undated                         Plaintiff registered proprietor asks caveator to assist him to prepare property for sale.  Caveator subsequently alleges that in substance: the plaintiff asked him to work to finish his house and prepare it for auction; the caveator replied that a tremendous amount of work was involved which he could not even put a figure on, asked how he would be paid, and said that he would not help unless assured he could be paid; the plaintiff replied that he would be paid for his work from the proceeds of sale. 

March – 23 June 2017  Caveator moves into the property and allegedly fixes it for sale. 

8 July                               Property sold, settlement date 6 September, rescission notice served in September. 

26 July                             Caveat lodged, grounds of claim “implied, resulting or constructive trust”, estate or

interest claimed is a “freehold estate”, all dealings prohibited.

18 September                Following provision of information by caveator’s solicitors and inconclusive negotiations plaintiff foreshadows application to remove caveat, caveator offers withdrawal in return for $45,000 to be held in caveator’s solicitor’s trust account pending resolution of the dispute.

The plaintiff applied for removal of the caveat under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 s. 90(3). John Dixon J ordered removal of the caveat with costs. His Honour reasoned –

1. His Honour first recited certain standard principles, namely –

(1) The power under s. 90(3) was discretionary.

(2) Section 90(3) was in the nature of a summary procedure and analogous to the determination of interlocutory injunctions.

(3) The caveator bore the onus of establishing a serious question to be tried that the caveator had the estate or interest claimed. The caveator must show at least some probability on the evidence of being found to have the equitable rights or interest asserted in the caveat.

(4) The caveator must further establish that the balance of convenience favoured maintenance of the caveat until trial.

(5) As to the balance of convenience generally the court should take the course appearing to carry the lower risk of injustice if the court should turn out to have been wrong in the sense of declining to order summary removal where the caveator fails to establish its right at trial or in failing to order summary removal where the registered proprietor succeeds at trial.

(6) The stronger the case that there was a serious question to be tried, the more readily the balance of convenience might be satisfied. It was sufficient that the caveator showed a sufficient likelihood of success that in the circumstances justified the practical effect of the caveat on the registered proprietor’s ability to exercise normal proprietary rights. [15]

2. His Honour also noted authority for the proposition that “a caveat may only be lodged in a form commensurate to the interest it is designed to protect”. [16]

3. The argument that the caveator’s entitlement to be paid for his work on a quantum meruit was enforceable in equity by a constructive trust was invalid. The plaintiff did not accept any intention to charge or secure the land with the obligation to repay the cost of the work or to create any beneficial interest in it. The concept of salvage, deriving from Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 171 at 174 – 5 per Dixon J, was inapplicable: the current case concerned property rights, not rights in insolvency and the property was preexisting and not converted into a fund for the benefit of claimants. There was only an oral agreement for services on a quantum meruit. [19], [24], [26] – [32]

4. If the caveator now evinced an intention to lodge a further caveat claiming an interest as chargee, an injunction would likely lie. [33]

5. No application to amend the caveat was made, and the discretion to amend would not have been exercised because:

(1) The application would have been to amend the interest claimed ie to chargee or equitable lienee, an amendment of interest claimed “not usually be[ing] permitted”, not merely to amend the grounds of claim or scope of protection. [35]

(2) The circumstances the grounds or interest claimed were erroneously stated was were relevant: the caveat was lodged not by an unrepresented person but by a solicitor certifying that he had taken reasonable steps to verify the identity of the caveator and had retained the evidence supporting the claim. [36]

(3) The court should not encourage the belief that caveats could be imprecisely formulated and then fixed up later: a caveat was in effect an interlocutory injunction by administrative act with possible serious consequences. Wrongly formulated caveats should not easily be tolerated. Caveats should not be used as bargaining chips. [37]-[38]

(4) The court should have regard to all of the considerations that arise on applying for removal of the caveat in the terms of the amendment sought. If this caveat was amended the caveatable interest claimed would still lack merit because even if the caveator’s version of the oral agreement was proved it would not create a charge or an equitable lien. [39] – [40]

6. His Honour not merely awarded costs but also reserved liberty to the plaintiff to make any application pursuant to r 63.23 as it may be advised against the first defendant’s solicitors. [44]

7. His Honour noted in passing that use of the phrase “implied, resulting or constructive trust”, which identified three different forms of trust, was “usually evidence of a degree of loose thinking”. [20]

Commentary –

1. His Honour deals with the principles applicable to s. 90(3) and amendment of caveats at length and touches on other interesting points now expanded on.

2. The stress on a caveat not imposing an absolute prohibition if inappropriate is expanded on in Lawrence & Hanson Group Pty Ltd v Young [2017] VSCA 172 to be the subject of a future Blog.

3. Other cases related to whether works on land will create a caveatable interest are –

• Walter v Registrar of Titles [2003] VSCA 122 at [18] – mere work and labour done not caveatable;

• Depas Pty Ltd v Dimitriou [2006] VSC 281 – a builder was found to have at most a contractual right to, and perhaps even an equitable interest in, half a joint venture’s net profit, but not a half interest in the land;

• An equitable lien will give rise to a proprietary and so caveatable interest, a foundational statement on equitable liens being that of Deane J in Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 668. Caveat cases where no lien was established are: Western Pacific Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Murray [2000] VSC 436 and HG & R Nominees Pty Ltd v Caulson Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 126;

• In Popescu v A & B Castle Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 175 Ginnane J held that the only Romalpa clause conferring an equitable interest in land was one entitling the holder to enter upon the land to sever and remove the fixtures, and accordingly removed a caveat based on a clause simply providing that all materials used in a contract remained the supplier’s property until paid in full.

4. As to injunctions against future caveats, or the similar order that the Registrar not register any caveat without its leave or further order see also Westpac Banking Corporation v Chilver [2008] VSC 587, Lettieri v Gajic [2008] VSC 378, Marchesi v Vasiliou [2009] VSC 213; Wells v Rouse & Ors [2015] VSC 533.

  1. 5. The reservation of liberty to apply for costs against the solicitors ties in with an increasing judicial tendency to so order, eg Gatto Corporate Solutions Pty Ltd v Mountney [2016] VSC 752.