The Court applied the general rule that priority among competing equitable charges is determined by time of creation, not by date of caveat lodgement, and held that the equities were otherwise equal notwithstanding that some claimants failed to lodge caveats. The Court held that where a loan agreement defined the secured 'Property' as only one of three residences on a single certificate of title, the equitable charge was limited to that residence's proportionate share of the sale proceeds, and it would be unconscionable for that chargee to assert priority over the entire lot. The Court rejected the argument that equitable charges secured only the principal advanced, holding that clause 5 of the loan agreements secured the lender's entire 'interest under the Loan Documents' including interest and indemnity costs.
The full text is available to signed-in members.