The Court ordered payment out of sale proceeds held in court to three parties who held equitable charges over the property and had reached a consent position on apportionment, without needing to determine their competing priorities. The Court found that two absent parties — one whose caveat was based on a loan agreement containing no words of charge appropriating the property, and another who filed a caveat claiming equitable interest from household contributions but adduced no evidence — had no valid proprietary claims to the funds. The case confirms that a caveat claiming an interest described as a 'lien' under a loan agreement without any language appropriating the property as security does not establish a proprietary interest sufficient to claim funds held in court.
The full text is available to signed-in members.