The Court held that where a caveator consents to orders for withdrawal of a caveat in exchange for payment into court, the court may refuse leave to lodge a further caveat under s 74O where the registered proprietor has arranged financing in reliance on those consent orders and the caveator failed to seek variation of the security regime before the caveat was withdrawn. The decision reinforces that caveats are not instruments for bargaining and that consent orders carry practical consequences for subsequent applications.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.