On an application to extend time for removal of a caveat under s 191(g) of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA), the court assessing the balance of convenience must consider the nature of the proprietary interest claimed, the effect of loss of that property on the applicant's use of adjoining properties, and the prospect that the applicant may be in a position to purchase any remaining interest if successful. A shift from emotional attachment to commercial expediency does not necessarily render damages an adequate remedy. On a material non-disclosure application, the court must properly consider evidence that the opposing party was already aware of the undisclosed matter, and the absence of evidence from the opposing party rebutting such knowledge is relevant.
The full text is available to signed-in members.