the importance of caveating correctly

In Coopharpash Pty Ltd v Carroll [2017] NSWSC 1386, Mr Collins agreed to lend Mr Carroll $185,000 out of his superfund. The Coopharpash company was the trustee of the superfund. To secure payment, Mr Collins lodged a caveat in his name over Mr Carroll’s property. The Supreme Court refused to extend the caveat. Justice Kunc said that the caveat was bad on its face, because it did not set out the facts by virtue of which Mr Collins claimed to have an interest. Additionally, the agreement to loan the money was between the company and Mr Carrol, with the company in the position of lendor. Consequently, the company was the one in the position to caveat, not Mr Collins. The Supreme Court allowed the caveat to lapse.