In exercising the discretion to extend a caveat under s 191(1)(g) of the Real Property Act 1886 (SA), the court must balance the competing claims and interests of the registered proprietor and the caveator, applying principles analogous to interlocutory injunctions. A caveator who establishes a reasonably arguable case does not enjoy a presumption in favour of extension; the balance of convenience must still be assessed. A caveator's inability to honour an undertaking as to damages, and loss of the practical basis for the claimed convenience, will weigh heavily against extension.
The full text is available to signed-in members.