Confirms that consent to withdraw a caveat on terms permitting immediate re-lodgement under s 74O of the Real Property Act does not constitute 'capitulation' warranting a costs order under Lai Qin principles. Practitioners seeking costs after consent resolution of caveat disputes must demonstrate manifest unreasonableness, not merely that the opposing party agreed to a pragmatic resolution.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.