The Court dismissed an application to remove a caveat over property where the caveator claimed an equitable interest based on an alleged agreement to jointly own the property in exchange for financial contributions toward its purchase. The Court found a serious question to be tried and held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the caveat, particularly given the registered proprietor's failure to adduce evidence regarding the status of the mortgage, the rental arrangement, his capacity to otherwise meet the claim, or to propose any alternative security for the caveator's asserted interest.
The full text is available to signed-in members.