|Haixing Group Pty Ltd v Chan (NSWSC) - real property - contract - no serious question to be tried that plaintiff validly exercised call option under deed - no order for extension of operation of caveat - leave not granted to lodge further caveat
|Re Hammond (VSC) - real property - modification of restrictive covenant to remove singular expression and replace it plurally
|Martin Luitingh and Terry Grace on Advocates’ Immunity in Australia
|Advocates’ immunity has been a controversial topic for many years. Barrister Martin Luitingh argues that Australia is alone in maintaining the immunity and should abandon it.
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Haixing Group Pty Ltd v Chan  NSWSC 1637
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Real property - contract - parties entered Deed of Put and Call Option in respect of property - defendant registered proprietor entered deed as grantor - plaintiff entered deed as grantee - deed provided call option granted by defendant to plaintiff in respect of property in consideration of call option fee - after deed made plaintiff lodged caveat over the Property claiming an interest as grantee of option - plaintiff purported to exercise the call option - defendant disputed plaintiff validly exercised call option - defendant served notice of proposed lapsing of caveat - plaintiff sought declaratory relief that it validly exercised call option and defendant bound by contract attached to deed - plaintiff also sought extension of operation of caveat or leave to lodge further caveat claiming interest as holder of purchaser’s lien - whether serious question to be tried that plaintiff validly exercised call option - s74K Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) - construction of deed - held: there was not a serious question to be tried that plaintiff validly exercised call option - Court not satisfied plaintiff’s claimed interest in property as grantee had or may have substance within meaning of s74K(2) - no order for extension of operation of caveat - leave not granted to lodge further caveat.
|Re Hammond  VSC 608
Supreme Court of Victoria
Real property - restrictive covenant - purchaser of land in residential subdivision made restrictive covenant not to erect any building on land other than ‘a’ private dwelling house - plaintiff successors to covenantor sought under s 84(1)(c) Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) to modify covenant to remove singular expression and replace it plurally with ‘any buildings other than private dwelling houses’ - plaintiffs contended modification would not substantially injure persons entitled to restriction’s benefit - held: no substantial injury would be caused by covenant being modified - order made modifying covenant by replacing the expression ‘any building other than a private dwelling house of stone or brick’ with the expression ‘any buildings other than private dwelling houses’ - application granted.