Marginata Securities Pty Limited (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) v Kiah 1 Pty Limited

[2026] NSWSC 864

Supreme Court of NSW

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Where refusal to extend a caveat would practically determine the caveator's substantive claim by allowing registration of a competing interest that would take priority, that consideration weighs significantly in favour of extending the caveat on the balance of convenience, even where the caveator's undertaking as to damages may be of limited value.
Speculative estimates of lost development profits contingent on unapproved development applications and successful project completion are entitled to little weight in assessing the balance of convenience against a caveator.
Even if a plaintiff in provisional liquidation cannot provide an undertaking as to damages of full value, the court retains discretion to extend a caveat where refusal would effectively preclude the plaintiff from having its rights determined at a final hearing, following Varley v Varley [2006] NSWSC 1025 and Cooper v Moloney (No 6) [2012] SASC 212.