Nguyen v Kaha [2008] NSWSC 794

In this matter there was a loan agreement which included a clause allowing the lender to lodge a caveat. However nothing in the loan expressly charged the land. Justice Austin determined that under the circumstances he would have inferred that the parties intended the land to be charged and therefore a caveatable interest. Instead because the caveat on its face purported to protect an interest arising under an unsecured loan there was no caveatable interest. The caveat was allowed to lapse and permission to rectify the drafting with a new caveat denied. This is further proof (if it was needed) that lenders need to be represented by a solicitor who knows what he is doing.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top