If an owner wants to remove a caveat from the title to the
owner's land, issuing a lapsing notice is a quick and easy way
to shift the problem to the party that lodged the caveat
(caveator). Once the caveator has been served with
the lapsing notice the caveator has 21 days to get an order from
the Supreme Court extending the life of the caveat.
To get an order the onus is on the caveator to persuade the
Court that the caveator has a legal or equitable interest in land.
If the caveator is unable to do so, the Court will refuse to make
the order and the caveat will lapse.
What the caveator may have thought was a secured debt will have
become unsecured, and ordinarily the caveator will have to pay the
land owner's costs of the proceedings.
However a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, Kondylis v
Bacic, is a reminder that "timing is
Ms Kondylis, the owner of the land, had entered into a contract
to sell her property. A notice to complete had been served on her.
The date fixed for completion was 10 February 2017.
Mr Bacic was a builder who had done some work on Ms
Kondylis's property. He had entered into a written agreement
with Ms Kondylis by which Ms Kondylis said that she would pay for
Mr Bacic's work out of the proceeds of sale of her property
In an effort to secure that payment Mr Bacic lodged a caveat
against the title to Ms Kondylis's property, claiming an
equitable interest in the land deriving from the agreement.
Unfortunately for Mr Bacic, many cases have held that an
interest in the proceeds of sale of a property is not capable of
supporting a caveat. It is not a claim to an interest in the land -
it is only a claim to an interest in the money paid for it.
The problem was that Ms Kondylis took no steps to remove Mr
Bacic's caveat until 8 February 2017, only 2 days before the
date fixed for completion of the sale of the property. By that time
it was too late to issue a lapsing notice (which requires 21 days
to pass before the caveat lapses).
So, Ms Kondylis had to apply to the Supreme Court for an order
pursuant to section 74MA of the Real Property Act 1900
that Mr Bacic withdraw his caveat. This was a reversal of the usual
position, in that the owner of the land (Ms Kondylis) had to apply
to the Court for an order, not the caveator.
In those circumstances, although the Court acknowledged that Mr
Bacic had no caveatable interest, it invoked the principle that
"a person who seeks equity, should do equity". As she did
not dispute the agreement with Mr Bacic, Ms Kondylis was required
to pay an amount equivalent to the claimed value of Mr Bacic's
work into a trust account. The funds had to remain there while Mr
Bacic brought proceedings in the Local Court to recover payment for
The case is a stark reminder that caveats should be dealt with
promptly. Had Ms Kondylis moved more quickly and issued a lapsing
notice, the shoe would have been on the other foot and it would
have been Mr Bacic who would have had to ask for the Court's
assistance – which it would not have given since he had no
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A lessee will need to demonstrate that the genuine interests of the lessor will be protected if relief is granted.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).