The Court refused leave to amend a caveat from 'interest as chargee' to a freehold estate based on an implied, resulting or constructive trust, and ordered removal of the caveat. The amendment was refused because it sought to change the interest claimed (not merely the grounds), no evidence was adduced explaining the circumstances of the original drafting error, and the merits of the proposed Amadio-type unconscionability claim were insufficient — the caveator failed to identify a special disability or demonstrate the registered proprietor's knowledge of and exploitation of any such disability. The Court confirmed there was no serious question to be tried on the existing claimed interest as chargee.
The full text is available to signed-in members.