Property vendors are anxious to know what happens when a purchaser registers a Caveat over the property they are selling under a Contract for Sale.
They ask: Will the Caveat derail the sale and what should I do? This is a guide.
First: Why has the purchaser registered a Caveat? If it is because they have released the deposit to the vendor or if settlement is deferred beyond the standard time, then it is perfectly justifiable for a purchaser to register a Caveat, provided they have been granted a 'caveatable interest' in the Contract for Sale.
Second: How does the Caveat affect the vendor? Anyone searching the title will see the Caveat - if they are a lender, they will not lend more money to the vendor; if they are another purchaser, they will not enter into a Contract of Sale with the vendor; unless the Caveat is removed. So a Caveat restricts the vendor in refinancing or re-selling the property.
Third: Is there a dispute with the purchaser? If there is no dispute, then the purchaser is using the Caveat to legitimately protect their interests, and will come to settlement with a Withdrawal of Caveat. But if there is a dispute, the purchaser is using the Caveat as a bargaining chip against the vendor. If so, the vendor needs to take action.
Fourth: What action can a vendor take to remove the caveat? The process is called lapsing the caveat. The vendor serves a lapsing notice which gives the purchaser 21 days (in NSW) (14 days in Qld) to apply to the Supreme Court to maintain the Caveat on the title. If the purchaser does nothing, the Caveat will be removed from the title by the Lands Registry.
Fifth: What happens if the purchaser goes to Court? For a vendor, the most significant part is that the purchaser must 'proffer an undertaking as to damages' which means that they accept responsibility to compensate the vendor for all losses, if the court agrees to maintain the caveat on the title until the dispute with the vendor is determined by the court.
In a recent case before the Supreme Court of NSW, the purchaser applied to maintain their caveat. But when the moment came, they refused to accept responsibility for losses the vendor might suffer. As a result, the Court ordered the Caveat be removed and the purchaser pay the vendor's legal costs of going to court.
For my case note click